I think that would depend on the individual philosophy. I personally am less-than-a-fan of Christie (not particularly amiable towards Cuccinelli either). If the question is about "Republicans", I think they will remain divided in the near term. Mitt Romney showed what moderates accomplish in National elections, love it or hate it. I think the D's have our country on lockdown a little longer until the principalists and the pragmatists figure out who is the leadership of the party.

Measure Man

11-04-2013, 07:37 PM

I think that would depend on the individual philosophy. I personally am less-than-a-fan of Christie (not particularly amiable towards Cuccinelli either). If the question is about "Republicans", I think they will remain divided in the near term. Mitt Romney showed what moderates accomplish in National elections, love it or hate it.

I disagree with that assessment. I think moderate Romney would have easily won the election...it was the Tea Party Romney that was created during the primaries that lost the general election.

I think the D's have our country on lockdown a little longer until the principalists and the pragmatists figure out who is the leadership of the party.

Perhaps.

I think Christie's leadership ability will appeal to a lot of people...the only question is whether or not he can survive the GOP primaries. I'm curious to see if these elections sway any influence in the party...

AJBIGJ

11-04-2013, 08:19 PM

I disagree with that assessment. I think moderate Romney would have easily won the election...it was the Tea Party Romney that was created during the primaries that lost the general election.

Perhaps.

I think Christie's leadership ability will appeal to a lot of people...the only question is whether or not he can survive the GOP primaries. I'm curious to see if these elections sway any influence in the party...

MSNBC seems to be the news network most enamored with Christie, I have a feeling that won't end well!

Okay...I buy it that Virginia is trending Democrat...like the rest of the country, I suppose.

Guess we'll see what happens. Judging from your comments and listening to Rush today...the Republican's think there is nothing to learn from Christie's win and Cuccinelli's loss (if it turns out that way)...

grimreaper

11-05-2013, 12:14 AM

Sooooo....he's losing because he's a Republican and not because he's a conservative? What?

Okay...I buy it that Virginia is trending Democrat...like the rest of the country, I suppose.

Guess we'll see what happens. Judging from your comments and listening to Rush today...the Republican's think there is nothing to learn from Christie's win and Cuccinelli's loss (if it turns out that way)...

So basically you're saying since you have 1 example of someone like Christie winning in NJ, that means the Republicans should pick that up and run with it? Sure, worked great for maverick McCain in 2008 and Scott Brown in 2012.

Politics is local. You need to find the right guy. Christie is likeable because of his personality and his no-nonsense approach. If I took many of his positions without identifying who's they were, and asked a room full of Democrats in NJ if they would vote for such a guy, I'd probably get a giant NO from all of them.

AJBIGJ

11-05-2013, 12:34 AM

All I can say about Christie is he seems to be the guy Democrats, REALLY REALLY want to run against Hillary for President.

Bunch

11-05-2013, 01:35 AM

All I can say about Christie is he seems to be the guy Democrats, REALLY REALLY want to run against Hillary for President.

I disagree.

I don't know from where you get this view. All current polling suggest that Christie will be the "strongest" opponent to Clinton in 2016. He is still trailing in all current polls though.

I prefer the GOP picks Ted Cruz or another extreme right wing candidate that way the election will be a no contest in favor of Clinton.

BTW...if the GOP don't change their messaging and stances on social issues it will really don't matter who gets selected in the primary, that candidate will lose like Romney did.

AJBIGJ

11-05-2013, 01:49 AM

I disagree.

I don't know from where you get this view. All current polling suggest that Christie will be the "strongest" opponent to Clinton in 2016. He is still trailing in all current polls though.

I use my ears, nobody in the "right wing side of media" is talking about Chris Christie in favorable terms, he doesn't rate as bad as say John McCain presently, but I don't see a lot of energy about him from his own party. If it's possible for someone to be backed by less enthusiasm than Romney, it would be in support of this guy.

Bunch

11-05-2013, 01:53 AM

I use my ears, nobody in the "right wing side of media" is talking about Chris Christie in favorable terms, he doesn't rate as bad as say John McCain presently, but I don't see a lot of energy about him from his own party. If it's possible for someone to be backed by less enthusiasm than Romney, it would be in support of this guy.

But that doesn't mean that democrats want to see him as candidate. In this maybe we can agree... You guys don't want him as candidate neither do we.

But in all honesty if he is selected I might give him a shot to get my vote. If he is good enough for a blue state like NJ there must be a reason.

AJBIGJ

11-05-2013, 02:11 AM

But that doesn't mean that democrats want to see him as candidate. In this maybe we can agree... You guys don't want him as candidate neither do we.

But in all honesty if he is selected I might give him a shot to get my vote. If he is good enough for a blue state like NJ there must be a reason.

If he were to become the nominee somehow at least it would make my decision-making simple, I will say that much.

Measure Man

11-05-2013, 02:44 AM

I use my ears, nobody in the "right wing side of media" is talking about Chris Christie in favorable terms, he doesn't rate as bad as say John McCain presently, but I don't see a lot of energy about him from his own party. If it's possible for someone to be backed by less enthusiasm than Romney, it would be in support of this guy.

Yes, I agree the right wing of the media and republican party don't much like him...he made two big mistakes that the conservatives hate....he said something nice about Obama, and hinted that some gun control might not be a bad idea.

The point is he might be able to win a national election...he couldn't get through a primary like the last one...so the question is whether or not the GOP will consider electability as an important factor.

Even McCain abandoned his normal principles during the 2008 election for a more conservative persona.

Measure Man

11-05-2013, 02:48 AM

So basically you're saying since you have 1 example of someone like Christie winning in NJ, that means the Republicans should pick that up and run with it? Sure, worked great for maverick McCain in 2008 and Scott Brown in 2012.

Yeah...that's what I'm saying.

Politics is local. You need to find the right guy. Christie is likeable because of his personality and his no-nonsense approach. If I took many of his positions without identifying who's they were, and asked a room full of Democrats in NJ if they would vote for such a guy, I'd probably get a giant NO from all of them.

So, he manages to get Democrats to vote for him...that a bad thing?

Well...personality does come into it...like I said, I think he has appeal for his leadership ability....it's the ol' who do you want answer that call at 3 am? I think Christie scores well there. His message is also one of cooperating and compromising...seems to have worked well in NJ.

Bunch

11-05-2013, 02:56 AM

Yes, I agree the right wing of the media and republican party don't much like him...he made two big mistakes that the conservatives hate....he said something nice about Obama, and hinted that some gun control might not be a bad idea.

The point is he might be able to win a national election...he couldn't get through a primary like the last one...so the question is whether or not the GOP will consider electability as an important factor.

Even McCain abandoned his normal principles during the 2008 election for a more conservative persona.

The GOP elected Romney in the past primary so they value electability. The question is... How far to the right will Christie will have to position himself to win the primary or will he elect to fight the extreme right wing candidates straight up with a more moderate message?

Romney decided to position himself to the far right and after 100 debates he couldn't convince enough moderates that he was a right of center candidate.

Absinthe Anecdote

11-05-2013, 09:54 AM

I like Chris Christie and would vote for him in a presidential election; unfortunately, I think his weight precludes him from being a serious contender.

If he does run in 2016, his weight will become a major issue, even if he sheds some pounds it will still be used against him.

I heard he had the lap band surgery last February and is dropping about 2-4 pounds each month.

I would love to see a guy with Christie's personality in the Whitehouse, but I don't think he can win.

AJBIGJ

11-05-2013, 12:23 PM

I think we all agree where Christie is concerned, Conservatives in general don't like him, obviously a few Libertarians feel the same way (not even remotely the same thing, and some feel even worse) about the matter, I personally think his entire schtick is being a loudmouthed Republicrat, he will probably go the way of Bloomberg here in the none-too-distant future. If Christie is all the Republican Party has to offer in 2016, I'll happily take the third party option.

imported_WILDJOKER5

11-05-2013, 03:04 PM

Oh, I don't know...because he's a Republican running in a State trending more and more Democratic?

Why is it Democrats typically win in blue states while Republicans typically win in red ones?

And there is a supposed libertarian in the running too that may eat some otherwise GOP votes. But hey if VA wants to keep going down the road to bankruptcy and over burdening taxes, then they will elect the Dem that has taken them this far already to finish off the job.

imported_WILDJOKER5

11-05-2013, 03:07 PM

So basically you're saying since you have 1 example of someone like Christie winning in NJ, that means the Republicans should pick that up and run with it? Sure, worked great for maverick McCain in 2008 and Scott Brown in 2012.

Politics is local. You need to find the right guy. Christie is likeable because of his personality and his no-nonsense approach. If I took many of his positions without identifying who's they were, and asked a room full of Democrats in NJ if they would vote for such a guy, I'd probably get a giant NO from all of them.

Maybe remind him about Scott Walker. But I have seen Christie be very conservative with the finances. Other than his bromance with Obama that cost flip-flopping Romney the election, I am not sure about the angst against Christie?

imported_WILDJOKER5

11-05-2013, 03:12 PM

I disagree.

I don't know from where you get this view. All current polling suggest that Christie will be the "strongest" opponent to Clinton in 2016. He is still trailing in all current polls though.

I prefer the GOP picks Ted Cruz or another extreme right wing candidate that way the election will be a no contest in favor of Clinton.

BTW...if the GOP don't change their messaging and stances on social issues it will really don't matter who gets selected in the primary, that candidate will lose like Romney did.

LOL, extreme right wing canidate? You mean the less Authoritarian canidate? You guys crack me up thinking that Romney and Obama were different in any way other than social aspects. Its not just about "left vs right". These are false naratives like calling the Obamacare "affordable" or "care". Neither one stands up to the name. You guys need to get your heads out of your asses and realize the government, followed by their media, takes a shit, calls it "gold" and you want to buy it just because your masters tell you its something its not.

imported_WILDJOKER5

11-05-2013, 03:15 PM

Yes, I agree the right wing of the media and republican party don't much like him...he made two big mistakes that the conservatives hate....he said something nice about Obama, and hinted that some gun control might not be a bad idea.

The point is he might be able to win a national election...he couldn't get through a primary like the last one...so the question is whether or not the GOP will consider electability as an important factor.

Even McCain abandoned his normal principles during the 2008 election for a more conservative persona.

And there is the problem with the GOP canidates, they give off a false persona. Obama was very clear about being everything people believe him to be. He is for redistrobution of wealth. He is for socializing America. He is for bigger government. The only one on the GOP that has said it and stuck to his priciples in the last primary was Paul.

Interesting take. Obama won Virginia in 2008 and 2012 and has they have 2 democratic senators. Trending more blue with each passing election.
I fail to see the correlation between Cuccinelli being conservative and that being the reason he might lose.

What has been screwing Virginia up the last 15 years is that people are moving from high tax Maryland into N. Va, which are bring their Democratic principles into usually conservative Virginia

Measure Man

11-05-2013, 04:05 PM

And there is the problem with the GOP canidates, they give off a false persona.

Yes...because they either have to be something they are not to win the GOP primary...or they really are "Tea Party" and can't win a national election.

The only one on the GOP that has said it and stuck to his priciples in the last primary was Paul.

Yeah... Ron Paul is the real deal...he'll say what he believes no matter who he is talking to...and can speak off the cuff because they are his real beliefs and he doesn't need to check in with the Grover Norquist to find out of he is right or wrong.

Bunch

11-05-2013, 04:05 PM

LOL, extreme right wing canidate? You mean the less Authoritarian canidate? You guys crack me up thinking that Romney and Obama were different in any way other than social aspects. Its not just about "left vs right". These are false naratives like calling the Obamacare "affordable" or "care". Neither one stands up to the name. You guys need to get your heads out of your asses and realize the government, followed by their media, takes a shit, calls it "gold" and you want to buy it just because your masters tell you its something its not.

Why is it that you think that ad hominem attacks advance your arguement?

We are having a really good discussion all the way until you decided to come in and crash the party with your antics, that to be honest are getting really old.

Bunch

11-05-2013, 04:12 PM

And there is the problem with the GOP canidates, they give off a false persona. Obama was very clear about being everything people believe him to be. He is for redistrobution of wealth. He is for socializing America. He is for bigger government. The only one on the GOP that has said it and stuck to his priciples in the last primary was Paul.

Again when it comes to wealth redistribution... No one beats the Red States...
3593

To put it in GOP terms the blue states are where the "makers" reside and red states where the "takers" live.

71Fish

11-05-2013, 04:46 PM

Again when it comes to wealth redistribution... No one beats the Red States...
3593

To put it in GOP terms the blue states are where the "makers" reside and red states where the "takers" live.

To really say that factually, we need to know what the outgoing and incoming money is going towards.

CYBERFX1024

11-05-2013, 04:47 PM

To put it in GOP terms the blue states are where the "makers" reside and red states where the "takers" live.

The blue states are where the "makers" reside? Really? Are you actually seeing what's happening in the country the last decade? The "makers" have been literally evacuating the high tax "maker" states and moving to the so called "taker states". The only problem with that is that they are taking their voting practices as well.

Bunch

11-05-2013, 04:49 PM

The blue states are where the "makers" reside? Really? Are you actually seeing what's happening in the country the last decade? The "makers" have been literally evacuating the high tax "maker" states and moving to the so called "taker states". The only problem with that is that they are taking their voting practices as well.

And the source of your statements is? Your facts are from?...

mehhh nevermind...

Bunch

11-05-2013, 04:55 PM

To really say that factually, we need to know what the outgoing and incoming money is going towards.

Does it really matter?!! Really!!?

You listen to many conservative talking heads saying things like "government is too big" and "we need to cut spending" but then when you are shown facts about which states TAKES the MOST government dollars now you want to change the subject to instead of "big government" and "cutting spending" to "lets see where the money is going"?

So following that line of thinking of "lets see where the money is going" what are you hoping to accomplsih?

grimreaper

11-05-2013, 04:59 PM

Yeah...that's what I'm saying.

So, he manages to get Democrats to vote for him...that a bad thing?

Well...personality does come into it...like I said, I think he has appeal for his leadership ability....it's the ol' who do you want answer that call at 3 am? I think Christie scores well there. His message is also one of cooperating and compromising...seems to have worked well in NJ.

And like I said, Christie is ONE example. You can't just transplant Christie's ideas in someone else's head and expect it to work. It's all about the man and the delivery.

grimreaper

11-05-2013, 05:09 PM

Again when it comes to wealth redistribution... No one beats the Red States...
3593

To put it in GOP terms the blue states are where the "makers" reside and red states where the "takers" live.

And considering several of those "red" states voted for Obama in 2008 and/or 2012, you might want to update the data and rethink that claim.

This was not a real ‘study’ but a rehashing of simple data compiled by a single source, the “Tax Foundation”. Unfortunately, they reveal no methodology whatsoever, leaving us to wonder how the numbers were derived and what determining factors were found or even considered.

And there’s not even an attempt at context or explanation by the color chart’s creator, Jesse Erlbaum, who basically writes off any attempt at breaking down the numbers to be “rationalizations”. Way to keep an open mind, Jesse. And while he is sticking his fingers in his ears saying “the data is what it is”, let’s actually look at it and think about it.

Meaninglessness

First, let’s look at the most basic flaw: Red and Blue designations are based on the voting trends of a single, federal election. There is some overlap to be sure with standard consideration for what are “welfare states” such as New York and California — hence the effective use of the chart to buck a stereotype — but we’re trying to correlate state voter behavior with nationally-controlled income and expenditure. And as Politifact points out, even one election cycle can easily shift a number of these states from one column to the other.

So even if we look at actual party dominance on the state level, we would not find it pertinent to federal disbursement and taxation. Such things ARE pertinent to things like cost of living and wages, and STATE-level entitlements. But they have no means of control over their citizen’s tithing to DC on their 1040s. Or is there some funding that states control (amount, not merely discretionary allocation) with regard to receiving or paying to the feds? I would think that would fall under the machinations of their federal congressional representatives at best, which we touch upon in a moment.

Secondly, there’s absolutely no breakdown of either income (corporate versus income taxes) or expenditure, which may or may not include a multitude of things. As far as where the “received” money goes, be it infrastructure, education, patronage jobs, special interests, etc., knowing these things would give us a clue, and if it really is a Blue/Red issue. Even before reading the Politifact evaluation, I had asked the obvious questions if it included military installations as expenditures, which could throw the whole thing off. How about public contractors? Farm subsidies would push the average Red state farther toward the receiving side of things, wouldn’t it?

In other words, the data could actually demonstrate how our lives are affected, possibly meaning very different things, depending on what is included or excluded in those numbers. WHERE the money is going and why could paint a completely different picture than the apparent intention of the compositor of the data — there are just so many funds, subsidies, entitlements, and grants of every kind that even if the data were researched, untangling it into meaningful understanding might be a fool’s errand.

And an important limitation of the data to note is that some states had a very slim majority vote and there’s no comparison between margin and the degree of spending/funding disparity — if even that would be really all that meaningful.

Meaning

But let’s look at what we DO know.

Blue states tend to have two characteristics: higher household incomes and higher population densities. They includes more people with higher brackets paying progressive rates, and infrastructure and other services cost less per capita. If these are significant factors — and I believe they are — then the imbalance could be quite natural, and the cause and effect as related to party is indirect, much like the aforementioned issue of murder rates. And even apart from the command of higher pay by strong unions (arguably protected more by Liberal state and city governments), corporations tend to be headquartered in major metropolitan areas, most of which are found in such places.

We also know that Federal spending is decided by Congress, and this chart was done during a very different balance from today. What if the data was compiled during the recent, biblical-scale spending of the Democrat supermajority? Would it show favoritism toward Blue states? If so the ratios would be vastly different, and I have to wonder why research has not been done since the 2004 data — or has it? And if there IS a significant shift when the parties switch dominance, that would be a huge testimony to the problems endemic to the system itself, and not merely an anecdotal glimpse of an unknown potential of cause and effect between voting trends and funding.

State by State

My main issue is that every state’s circumstances that dictate federal funding is totally different, and can easily be skewed by different parts of a state with very different needs as well as voting trends. For example, Louisiana might be near the top receivers because of Katrina relief that year. Why hasn’t anyone mentioned that? Texas might be be a huge contributor because of corporate taxes from the plastics industry, where over 3/4 of the world’s polyolefins are polymerized. Then again, the oil industry gets huge subsidies, but what if the check is made out to an office in New York City? And I still wonder if military installations are counted as disbursements, since so many of them are in particular Red states that have a high ratio against them. The list goes o and on. Feel free to add your own!

So we are left again with the main problem: the chart is vague no matter what you make attribution to, with plenty of exception in every case, be it population density or election results (far less pertinent, I would think). And maybe it’s something silly, like maybe Republicans are better at getting their money back to their districts. Maybe it’s state-level government issues of influence. Maybe there’s more behind-closed-doors earmarks on the Right of the aisle, though I doubt it.

This is an analysis that’s begging to be done more thoroughly to actual mean something instead of roughly push a point that may or may not be valid or deceiving. And if we look at each state on a case-by-case basis to really find out what’s going on, it would not only be fascinating, but perhaps change our views in ways yet unimagined.

considerreconsider.com/2012/a-tale-of-two-charts/‎

imported_WILDJOKER5

11-05-2013, 05:15 PM

Why is it that you think that ad hominem attacks advance your arguement?

We are having a really good discussion all the way until you decided to come in and crash the party with your antics, that to be honest are getting really old.

Its not ad hominem. Welfare is handouts called "welfare" so those that fight for them say its constitutional. PATRIOT Act is no where near patriotic. And the ACA is making UNaffordable to get INSURANCE, not care.

Bunch

11-05-2013, 05:16 PM

And like I said, Christie is ONE example. You can't just transplant Christie's ideas in someone else's head and expect it to work. It's all about the man and the delivery.

I think there are many more GOP politicians besides Christie that manage to move independents and moderate democrats to their side. McCain, Graham, Susan Collins, Dean Heller among others. For all the talk of "standing for what you believe in" when it comes to politicians you will find that many of them are just panderers. You got right now many politicians in the GOP pandering to the Tea Party base and that might work fine for local elections but for national election not that much, IMO.

Bunch

11-05-2013, 05:19 PM

And considering several of those "red" states voted for Obama in 2008 and/or 2012, you might want to update the data and rethink that claim.

considerreconsider.com/2012/a-tale-of-two-charts/‎

Again so if you want to change the debate of "governement is too big" "we need to cut spending" to "lets see where the money is going", what are you hoping to accomplish?

Bunch

11-05-2013, 05:21 PM

Its not ad hominem. Welfare is handouts called "welfare" so those that fight for them say its constitutional. PATRIOT Act is no where near patriotic. And the ACA is making UNaffordable to get INSURANCE, not care.

And you conviniently forgot the rest of your statement!!!

LOL, extreme right wing canidate? You mean the less Authoritarian canidate? You guys crack me up thinking that Romney and Obama were different in any way other than social aspects. Its not just about "left vs right". These are false naratives like calling the Obamacare "affordable" or "care". Neither one stands up to the name. You guys need to get your heads out of your asses and realize the government, followed by their media, takes a shit, calls it "gold" and you want to buy it just because your masters tell you its something its not.

Typical WJ5... I sincerely hope the GOP find more people like you...they need more...the more the better...

imported_WILDJOKER5

11-05-2013, 05:22 PM

And considering several of those "red" states voted for Obama in 2008 and/or 2012, you might want to update the data and rethink that claim.

considerreconsider.com/2012/a-tale-of-two-charts/‎

Not to mention its the Blue cities in those Red states that recieve the majority of the handouts. Plus you have places like AZ and NM who have huge populations of illegals that they cant get rid of. I find it funny that the big, non-income taxing states like FL and TX are better off than most blue states with high income taxes. And northern blue states that are being ran with GOP governers should be looked at as well. Finally, look at the northern states who have Canadians tourists that come and spend money in their states vs the south who gets mexicans who mooch. Many more factors to consider than just what you think is the surface.

And added into the "takers" pool of money is what they recieve for military bases in their states. Most red states are the biggest military states in the nation.

20+Years

11-05-2013, 05:23 PM

I could win the next election if I ran Republican. Its not that hard for goodness sake.

1. We WILL pass a "balanced" budget. We can't pay off our National Debt in year 1, but we CAN make a budget to get us there. ALL Government programs and spending will be considered, and cut where possible. YOUR CURRENT ENTILEMENTS/BENEFITS WILL NOT BE CUT, PERIOD (this line works :) ).

2. We will reduce the amount of government agencies and privatize them to the public to increase jobs (yup, just took away gov jobs and gave them to the private sector, non gov workers will see it as a +. Also reduces gov benefit spending.)

3. Any and all overseas spending/donations/payments/aid will be revalidated, if not critical to US, gone.

4. We WILL be transparent on where out nations tax money is being spent.

5. I'm a hell of a guy, just ask me...

grimreaper

11-05-2013, 05:24 PM

Again so if you want to change the debate of "governement is too big" "we need to cut spending" to "lets see where the money is going", what are you hoping to accomplish?

Who's changing the debate? Government is too big. The federal budget went up a trillion dollars in less than 10 years. Even with record revenues coming in, we are still spending way more than we take in. Unsustainable and undeniable.

Bunch

11-05-2013, 05:25 PM

Not to mention its the Blue cities in those Red states that recieve the majority of the handouts. Plus you have places like AZ and NM who have huge populations of illegals that they cant get rid of. I find it funny that the big, non-income taxing states like FL and TX are better off than most blue states with high income taxes. And northern blue states that are being ran with GOP governers should be looked at as well. Finally, look at the northern states who have Canadians tourists that come and spend money in their states vs the south who gets mexicans who mooch. Many more factors to consider than just what you think is the surface.

And added into the "takers" pool of money is what they recieve for military bases in their states. Most red states are the biggest military states in the nation.

There is always an excuse for conservatives when hit in the face with facts.

Bunch

11-05-2013, 05:28 PM

Who's changing the debate? Government is too big. The federal budget went up a trillion dollars in less than 10 years. Even with record revenues coming in, we are still spending way more than we take in. Unsustainable and undeniable.

The report you quoted all it did was changing the debate from "government spending" vs "where the money is going". Your quoted article.

imported_WILDJOKER5

11-05-2013, 05:31 PM

There is always as excuse for conservatives when hit in the face with facts.

No, these are the facts to coutner your scatter shot claims.

Bunch

11-05-2013, 05:33 PM

No, these are the facts to coutner your scatter shot claims.

You haven't presented ONE FACT!!!, only ad hominem arguements, personal attacks and fictional anecdotal stories, is that what is consider FACTS in conservatives circles?. But thats what I expect from you anyways. Last reply.

grimreaper

11-05-2013, 05:35 PM

The report you quoted all it did was changing the debate from "government spending" vs "where the money is going". Your quoted article.

The chart you posted is based on decade-old "data" with no context. Certainly nothing that anyone should look at as having any credibility.

And the point stands...government is too big. The budget is unsustainable and this is undeniable.

Measure Man

11-05-2013, 05:39 PM

And like I said, Christie is ONE example. You can't just transplant Christie's ideas in someone else's head and expect it to work. It's all about the man and the delivery.

Let me see, if you follow you correctly:

Christie is winning on personality....his conservative policies would otherwise lose.

Cuccinelli is losing because the state prefers liberal policies and it has nothing to do with him...the Democrats have just won the state with their policies.

Sooo...the Republican party should stick with "good conservative policies" because, if it weren't big personality of Christie, they would lose both NJ and Virginia...therefore, there is nothing to learn today.

Bunch

11-05-2013, 05:41 PM

The chart you posted is based on decade-old "data" with no context. Certainly nothing that anyone should look at as having any credibility.

I disagree. It can be use as an indicative. The GOP has been claiming for decades that the blue states is where the money is going. This shows you that is not the case at all. It shows that the GOP has been saying a lie for decades.

And the point stands...government is too big. The budget is unsustainable and this is undeniable.

That wasn't the point, the point is that Red States are the ones that benefit the most from government spending.

grimreaper

11-05-2013, 05:47 PM

Let me see, if you follow you correctly:

Christie is winning on personality....his conservative policies would otherwise lose.

Yep. You tell me how someone with "conservative" principles, as you say, wins in a state like NJ. Only certain people are going to be able to pull that off.

Cuccinelli is losing because the state prefers liberal policies and it has nothing to do with him...the Democrats have just won the state with their policies.

Sooo...the Republican party should stick with "good conservative policies" because, if it weren't big personality of Christie, they would lose both NJ and Virginia...therefore, there is nothing to learn today.

Yep, just what the Republicans need...to be more like their opponents. That's the key to victory!

imported_WILDJOKER5

11-05-2013, 05:48 PM

You haven't presented ONE FACT!!!, only ad hominem arguements, personal attacks and fictional anecdotal stories, is that what is consider FACTS in conservatives circles?. But thats what I expect from you anyways. Last reply.

Really? These arent facts? Guess you can throw out partial truths like what you did and expect people to go off and explain every little cent that is spent in those states to justify the money. But heaven forbid someone sends a graph of the ethnicity dropout rate and not take the simple explaination of "its the white mans fault". I gave you many reasons, not attacks, of why the reds recieve more than blues, and you know them to be true or you would dispute them,

grimreaper

11-05-2013, 05:50 PM

I disagree. It can be use as an indicative. The GOP has been claiming for decades that the blue states is where the money is going. This shows you that is not the case at all. It shows that the GOP has been saying a lie for decades.

That wasn't the point, the point is that Red States are the ones that benefit the most from government spending.

And you can't prove that from a chart with no context. Show me a chart, with current data and context and we'll talk. I could just as easily make the claim that most of that money is probably going to the big blue cities in those states too, which is probably true, but again, there is no context. Nice piece of propaganda though.

imported_WILDJOKER5

11-05-2013, 05:51 PM

That wasn't the point, the point is that Red States are the ones that benefit the most from government spending.
And depending on where you got your article from, "subsidies" and "tax breaks" for businesses can be counted against the "takers" as well.

Measure Man

11-05-2013, 05:55 PM

Yep. You tell me how someone with "conservative" principles, as you say, wins in a state like NJ.

I didn't say that, you did. I think a lot of Tea Party, would say Christie is not conservative enough....even with his personality, I think if he had "Tea Party" policies, he probably doesn't win. Though in the grand scheme of things, overall, he's probably to the right, for sure.

Yep, just what the Republicans need...to be more like their opponents. That's the key to victory!

Or to be more like the American people they want to represent.

Bunch

11-05-2013, 05:55 PM

And you can't prove that from a chart with no context. Show me a chart, with current data and context and we'll talk. I could just as easily make the claim that most of that money is probably going to the big blue cities in those states too, which is probably true, but again, there is no context. Nice piece of propaganda though.

The conservatives hypocrisy when it comes to governement spending is fascinating.

CORNELIUSSEON

11-05-2013, 05:57 PM

A couple interesting elections tomorrow.

Chris Christie, moderate Republican (that's RINO to the conservatives out there), stands to win a landslide victory in usually Democratic New Jersey.

Christie is my current Governor, and I can tell you that he isn't as “moderate” as he would have you believe. His moderate stance is just “moderate” enough to pass muster in New Jersey, but he isn't “loved”, even by people who actually vote for him. For example, Christie is “Pro Life” – he has said so – but he knows that saying anything “official” on the subject, or acting on any of the “Pro Life Agenda”, would get him impeached in a minute. As a result, Christie is totally silent on the subject when asked as “Governor”, rather than as “Private Citizen”.

He remains totally silent on the subject of the Tea Party AND the Progressives, and pretends to not notice them when they involve themselves in protests, but he is enough of a bully that he will turn into a Pit Bull in an instant when a protester verbally attacks him in any way that he considers his private business, even when it is a subject that New Jersey politicians get asked about on a daily basis.

He has refused Federal money for projects that would benefit commuters who work in NYC, and yet he campaigns from the rooftops for Hurricane Sandy money for home owners who have already been told that their Flood Insurance’s price-tag for the foreseeable future will go through the roof, and that they should move inland.

There are Disability Developmental Center Centers that he has already started to close that are guarranteed to actually be closed when he wins today. The workers are so sure of his intent that they have already started to head for the doors before they find out that their jobs have been eliminated from a notice posted on the closed doors.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

BENDER56

11-05-2013, 06:15 PM

Okay...I buy it that Virginia is trending Democrat...like the rest of the country, I suppose.

Interestingly, the country is trending Independent, not Democrat.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

imported_WILDJOKER5

11-05-2013, 06:28 PM

The conservatives hypocrisy when it comes to governement spending is fascinating.

About as bad as liberal spending. The difference is, the GOP wants to spend on thinks specific to the constitution while libs love the "social contract" which changes to fit their needs. And Libs love to claim "tax breaks" that are included in their own progressive tax law as "handouts" or "corporate welfare", as if not being able to take the production that people worked hard for is a kin to the corporations stealing from the poor.

Now you want to keep calling me a "conservative", but let me clear this up for you because you cant seem to think past a 2 party system, I am libertarian, which is different than these conservatives.

71Fish

11-05-2013, 06:28 PM

Does it really matter?!! Really!!?

You listen to many conservative talking heads saying things like "government is too big" and "we need to cut spending" but then when you are shown facts about which states TAKES the MOST government dollars now you want to change the subject to instead of "big government" and "cutting spending" to "lets see where the money is going"?

So following that line of thinking of "lets see where the money is going" what are you hoping to accomplsih?

if we don't know where the money is going, how do we know what needs to be cut, or in some cases increased?

Bunch

11-05-2013, 06:33 PM

if we don't know where the money is going, how do we know what needs to be cut, or in some cases increased?

Because I know conservative thinking and I know, you know, we all know how that is going to end. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Bunch

11-05-2013, 06:34 PM

About as bad as liberal spending. The difference is, the GOP wants to spend on thinks specific to the constitution while libs love the "social contract" which changes to fit their needs. And Libs love to claim "tax breaks" that are included in their own progressive tax law as "handouts" or "corporate welfare", as if not being able to take the production that people worked hard for is a kin to the corporations stealing from the poor.

Now you want to keep calling me a "conservative", but let me clear this up for you because you cant seem to think past a 2 party system, I am libertarian, which is different than these conservatives.

That response wasn't even directed at you.

I'm done talking to you. Seriously!! last reply.

imported_WILDJOKER5

11-05-2013, 06:37 PM

Christie is my current Governor, and I can tell you that he isn't as “moderate” as he would have you believe. His moderate stance is just “moderate” enough to pass muster in New Jersey, but he isn't “loved”, even by people who actually vote for him. For example, Christie is “Pro Life” – he has said so – but he knows that saying anything “official” on the subject, or acting on any of the “Pro Life Agenda”, would get him impeached in a minute. As a result, Christie is totally silent on the subject when asked as “Governor”, rather than as “Private Citizen”.Wise choice since he knows there is nothing he can do to stop the killing of babies from happening. He has his personal views, but if the country or population of the area isnt going to benifit or doesnt want it, why bring it up? Politicians shouldnt always be leaders, and in our republic, they need to follow what the voters that put them in the position want him to do.

He remains totally silent on the subject of the Tea Party AND the Progressives, and pretends to not notice them when they involve themselves in protests, but he is enough of a bully that he will turn into a Pit Bull in an instant when a protester verbally attacks him in any way that he considers his private business, even when it is a subject that New Jersey politicians get asked about on a daily basis.Hes a "bully" to be one man and stand up to a crowd that out numebrs him? Thats funny.

He has refused Federal money for projects that would benefit commuters who work in NYC, and yet he campaigns from the rooftops for Hurricane Sandy money for home owners who have already been told that their Flood Insurance’s price-tag for the foreseeable future will go through the roof, and that they should move inland.He refuse the federal money why? Cause it was over budget? Cause it was behind in work? The Hurricane sandy thing is a mess, and I think this is what is really bringing him down with TEA party voters.

There are Disability Developmental Center Centers that he has already started to close that are guarranteed to actually be closed when he wins today. The workers are so sure of his intent that they have already started to head for the doors before they find out that their jobs have been eliminated from a notice posted on the closed doors.

I could go on, but you get the idea.
And if the state cant afford these centers, he should just keep them open because the people who work there need a job? Sorry, but if the population of the state isnt making enough to be taxed enough to support these freebies, why do you keep them open? Government should be ran like a business, because then more people would benefit, especially those that really need it.

71Fish

11-05-2013, 06:41 PM

Because I know conservative thinking and I know, you know, we all know how that is going to end. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Wanting to know where the money is going is "conservative" thinking?

imported_WILDJOKER5

11-05-2013, 06:43 PM

That response wasn't even directed at you.

I'm done talking to you. Seriously!! last reply.

Oh nooooes, you said "seriously". :shockawe:

You refuse to answer because what "I know, you know, we all know how that is going to end". The answer is, that money that is being counted as "handouts" to red states goes to more than just foodstamps and welfare (handouts) and section 8 housing. The money for military is counted in there. The money that isnt taken through taxes of corporations is in there. And you still ignore the fact that places in those red states that get most of the money are large, urban, liberal democrat cities. ATL's per child cost for public school is much higher than that of places like Warner Robins.

imported_WILDJOKER5

11-05-2013, 06:57 PM

Again when it comes to wealth redistribution... No one beats the Red States...
3593

To put it in GOP terms the blue states are where the "makers" reside and red states where the "takers" live.

I like the second cause they also factor in agriculture "subsidies" as well. These show more of the reason as to why. And they give more updated data.

And we also see blue states taking a lead in the "takers" department with VA, Maryland, and HI moving to spots #2, 3, and 4.

Bunch

11-05-2013, 07:01 PM

Wanting to know where the money is going is "conservative" thinking?

No.

Obviously we all want to know where the money is going.

The difference and the hypocrisy is that GOP ad Tea Party love to rant about goverment spending, takers, makers and such things but when it really comes down too they don't want to cut spending either. Now you see that the GOP has been telling a lie for decades talking about wealth redistribution and the like when in reality most government money is going to the red states.

Thats where is clear for everybody to see. Conservatives are only against spending that serves for the poor, for those in need, for the ones who need a hand. But for the farmers, for the military industrial complex, for subsidies for oil companies and others, for Wal Street not them...there are plenty of money for those.

All of you conservatives (and the libertarian one) here have made the same distinction here with or without intent. Look back at the comments and all you will find are comments likes:
-"the money is going to the blue cities"
-"but the money is going to the military"
-"is because we have illegals"
-"is because the oil companies"
-"is because the farmers"

On and on and on. What is shows is what type of government spending conservatives like and what of government spending you don't. The main point is that YOU ALL CONSERVATIVES LIKE GOVERNMENT SPENDING, so stop acting like you don't!!!

And that my conservatives friends is the hypocrisy I talk about.

Thats what you find when you follow where the money is going.

I respectfully bow out of this thread. Enjoy!

imported_WILDJOKER5

11-05-2013, 07:06 PM

No.

Obviously we all want to know where the money is going.

The difference and the hypocrisy is that GOP ad Tea Party love to rant about goverment spending, takers, makers and such things but when it really comes down too they don't want to cut spending either. Now you see that the GOP has been telling a lie for decades talkning about wealth redistribution and the like when in reality most government monei is going to the red states.

Thats where the is clear for everybody to see. Conservatives are only against spending that serves for the poor, for those in need, for the ones who need a hand. But for the farmers, for the military industrial complex, for subsidies for oil companies and others, for Wal Street not them...there are plenty of money for those.

All of you conservatives (and the libertarian one) here have made the same distiction here with or without intent. Look back at the comments and all you will fins is comments like:
-"the money is going to the blue cities"
-"but the money is going to the military"
-"is because we have illegals"
-"is because the oil companies"
-"is becasue the farmers"

On and on and on. What is shows is what type of government spending conservatives like and what of government spending you don't. The main point is that YOU ALL CONSERVATIVES LIKE GOVERNMENT SPENDING, so stop acting like you don't!!!

And that my conservatives friends is the hypocrisy I talk about.

I respectfully bow out of this thread. Enjoy!

Thast what you find when you follow where the money is going.

Yet, if you read the article, you see you are wrong and mislead about how the data you are presenting was purposably left out. Not to mention it is old, based on 1 voting cycle, and on a year that Bush won the POTUS. So of course there are more "red states" than blue.

71Fish

11-05-2013, 07:10 PM

No.

Obviously we all want to know where the money is going.

The difference and the hypocrisy is that GOP ad Tea Party love to rant about goverment spending, takers, makers and such things but when it really comes down too they don't want to cut spending either. Now you see that the GOP has been telling a lie for decades talking about wealth redistribution and the like when in reality most government money is going to the red states.

Thats where the is clear for everybody to see. Conservatives are only against spending that serves for the poor, for those in need, for the ones who need a hand. But for the farmers, for the military industrial complex, for subsidies for oil companies and others, for Wal Street not them...there are plenty of money for those.

All of you conservatives (and the libertarian one) here have made the same distinction here with or without intent. Look back at the comments and all you will fins are comments likes:
-"the money is going to the blue cities"
-"but the money is going to the military"
-"is because we have illegals"
-"is because the oil companies"
-"is because the farmers"

On and on and on. What is shows is what type of government spending conservatives like and what of government spending you don't. The main point is that YOU ALL CONSERVATIVES LIKE GOVERNMENT SPENDING, so stop acting like you don't!!!

And that my conservatives friends is the hypocrisy I talk about.

Thast what you find when you follow where the money is going.

I respectfully bow out of this thread. Enjoy!

I can see you foaming at the mouth as you type.

That charts tells us nothing. I can find a similar chart that slants to whatever I want it to say that also tells us nothing, depending on what I'm looking for.

CYBERFX1024

11-05-2013, 07:10 PM

I could win the next election if I ran Republican. Its not that hard for goodness sake.

1. We WILL pass a "balanced" budget. We can't pay off our National Debt in year 1, but we CAN make a budget to get us there. ALL Government programs and spending will be considered, and cut where possible. YOUR CURRENT ENTILEMENTS/BENEFITS WILL NOT BE CUT, PERIOD (this line works :) ).

2. We will reduce the amount of government agencies and privatize them to the public to increase jobs (yup, just took away gov jobs and gave them to the private sector, non gov workers will see it as a +. Also reduces gov benefit spending.)

3. Any and all overseas spending/donations/payments/aid will be revalidated, if not critical to US, gone.

4. We WILL be transparent on where out nations tax money is being spent.

5. I'm a hell of a guy, just ask me...

+1

imported_WILDJOKER5

11-05-2013, 07:16 PM

No.

Obviously we all want to know where the money is going.

The difference and the hypocrisy is that GOP ad Tea Party love to rant about goverment spending, takers, makers and such things but when it really comes down too they don't want to cut spending either. Now you see that the GOP has been telling a lie for decades talking about wealth redistribution and the like when in reality most government money is going to the red states.

Thats where the is clear for everybody to see. Conservatives are only against spending that serves for the poor, for those in need, for the ones who need a hand. But for the farmers, for the military industrial complex, for subsidies for oil companies and others, for Wal Street not them...there are plenty of money for those.

All of you conservatives (and the libertarian one) here have made the same distinction here with or without intent. Look back at the comments and all you will fins are comments likes:
-"the money is going to the blue cities"
-"but the money is going to the military"
-"is because we have illegals"
-"is because the oil companies"
-"is because the farmers"

On and on and on. What is shows is what type of government spending conservatives like and what of government spending you don't. The main point is that YOU ALL CONSERVATIVES LIKE GOVERNMENT SPENDING, so stop acting like you don't!!!

And that my conservatives friends is the hypocrisy I talk about.

Thast what you find when you follow where the money is going.

I respectfully bow out of this thread. Enjoy!

"Spending" in your eyes is the same as a robber not being allowed to steal from the bank. You cant say the government is "spending" when they dont take every last dime from the producers. This is a trick in accounting because you are showing that not enough people in blue states produce enough to fit in with tax refunds. Its pretty simple really.

State Red makes $1 billion in agriculture, but its not taxed at full 35%. In your eyes, anything less than 35% is considered "spending", even though there are less people getting handouts like foodstamps sans the illegal imagrints.
State Blue makes $1 billion in service industry. They are taxed at full 35%. So this means they "produce" more. But more people get foodstamps because the service industry doesnt produce highly skilled workers who recieve enough to live on.

Until state blue becomes the place with enough people on food stamps to out weigh the tax breaks for state red, you feel state red is the takers. But in all honesty, with out state red, you dont have state blue at all.

CYBERFX1024

11-05-2013, 07:19 PM

And the source of your statements is? Your facts are from?...
mehhh nevermind...

Nevermind? Because you don't want to hear facts or because you just want to spit off your stupid talking points? It has been common knowledge for at least a decade now that the "maker" states have been hemorrhaging companies and people because of the high cost of living and high taxes. Look at Texas and NC right now, they have been seeing a huge influx of people moving in to the states. I am from NC and now live in CA right now. I can tell you that I have met several people who have LEFT this state due to the high taxes, cost of living, and how illegals have more rights than citizens do. Go look up Prop. 30 for California.

End of Story.... Seriously

Bunch

11-05-2013, 07:26 PM

Nevermind? Because you don't want to hear facts or because you just want to spit off your stupid talking points?

No.

Its just that with Rusty gone it's really tiring to be the only active voice for the democrat/progressive/liberal side. So I just let you know that I'm leaving the conversation not because I feel beaten, or conquered, mad or anything. It just that after a while it gets old handling 5-6 discussions at the same time, you guys never felt the need of doing that because you mostly reply to either me and/or Rusty. Anyways have a great afternoon, maybe we can pick this up or go at it in another thread later on.

grimreaper

11-05-2013, 07:32 PM

Or to be more like the American people they want to represent.

Considering Republicans control the House, hold a majority of Governorships and state legislatures, and are favored to take back the Senate next year, please define for me what the American people want, or should I say, what you think they want.

grimreaper

11-05-2013, 07:35 PM

The conservatives hypocrisy when it comes to governement spending is fascinating.

There is no hypocrisy. Government spending is out of control whether you are talking about corporate welfare or the other entitlement programs that are unstustainable in their current forms. Last I checked, you're the one posting charts that are pointing fingers. What was it you were saying about hypocrisy?

Measure Man

11-05-2013, 07:46 PM

Nevermind? Because you don't want to hear facts or because you just want to spit off your stupid talking points? It has been common knowledge for at least a decade now that the "maker" states have been hemorrhaging companies and people because of the high cost of living and high taxes.

Common knowledge if you don't look up the facts that is.

Look at Texas and NC right now, they have been seeing a huge influx of people moving in to the states. I am from NC and now live in CA right now. I can tell you that I have met several people who have LEFT this state due to the high taxes, cost of living, and how illegals have more rights than citizens do. Go look up Prop. 30 for California.

End of Story.... Seriously

Don't look now, but CA is doing pretty well lately.

http://bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/gsp_newsrelease.htm

CYBERFX1024

11-05-2013, 07:53 PM

Don't look now, but CA is doing pretty well lately.

http://bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/gsp_newsrelease.htm

That was before Prop. 30 and most of that GDP is in the Silicon Valley area because it's certainly not in the rest of the state.

Measure Man

11-05-2013, 08:55 PM

That was before Prop. 30 and most of that GDP is in the Silicon Valley area because it's certainly not in the rest of the state.

I live in CA too...we just got a new Applebee's, so things are looking up here....

do you have any data to support the mass exodus from California...or just a couple people you know moved?

Based on the recent estimates and growth rate, the 2013 population in California is somehwere around 38,441,387. It is the 19th fastest growing state with a yearly growth rate of 1.09%.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/california-population-2013/

Measure Man

11-05-2013, 09:06 PM

Considering Republicans control the House, hold a majority of Governorships and state legislatures, and are favored to take back the Senate next year, please define for me what the American people want, or should I say, what you think they want.

Well, in 2012:

More Americans voted for Obama than Romney

More Americans voted for a Democrat for House of Republicans representative than voted for Repubicans

More Americans voted for a Democrat to be their Senator than voted for a Republican

It would take some time...but I might be interested in a bet that more Americans voted for a Democrat for governor, too...but of course because of differences in the sizes of state, etc... for example, North Dakota has 1 governor and California has 1 governor...although your "stats" would show that as "American people being evenly split on governors" who would you say had a greater number of Americans voting for them?

grimreaper

11-05-2013, 09:31 PM

Well, in 2012:

More Americans voted for Obama than Romney

More Americans voted for a Democrat for House of Republicans representative than voted for Repubicans

More Americans voted for a Democrat to be their Senator than voted for a Republican

It would take some time...but I might be interested in a bet that more Americans voted for a Democrat for governor, too...but of course because of differences in the sizes of state, etc... for example, North Dakota has 1 governor and California has 1 governor...although your "stats" would show that as "American people being evenly split on governors" who would you say had a greater number of Americans voting for them?

When did I say "nationally speaking"? I thought we were talking about governors...i.e. individual states...and as I said, Republicans hold more governorships, not to mention state legislatures. I thew the U.S. House in there since it's another fact that apparently doesn't count, but since you are obviously out to try and justify your statement that Republicans do not represent the people, when I have given you several examples that show otherwise, proceed.

It would take some time...but I might be interested in a bet that more Americans voted for a Democrat for governor, too...but of course because of differences in the sizes of state, etc... for example, North Dakota has 1 governor and California has 1 governor...although your "stats" would show that as "American people being evenly split on governors" who would you say had a greater number of Americans voting for them?

I didn't provide any "stats". I provided facts. And there's no even split. There are currently 30 Republican governors.

When we start electing governors of states based on a national popular vote, whatever those figures are, that's when those numbers would actually become relevant. As common sense would have it however, a resident of New York doesn't get any say in who should be the governor of Texas.

CYBERFX1024

11-05-2013, 09:40 PM

I live in CA too...we just got a new Applebee's, so things are looking up here....
do you have any data to support the mass exodus from California...or just a couple people you know moved?

Where do you live in CA? I live in Pasadena.

Measure Man

11-05-2013, 09:49 PM

When did I say "nationally speaking"? I thought we were talking about governors...i.e. individual states...and as I said, Republicans hold more governorships, not to mention state legislatures. I thew the U.S. House in there since it's another, you know, fact. Since you are apparently out to try and prove that Republicans do not represent the people, proceed.

You asked what I claimed the "American People" want...well, American people refers to all Americans, of course. Otherwise I would have say "each state candidate should try to be more like the state people they want to represent"...of course this would sort of defeat the whole purpose of the parties as you'd have liberals in liberal states and being conservatives in conservative states...like the GOP doesn't have enough problems

We were talking about the how the party as whole might be more successful. My point was to "be more like the American people"...implying, as a whole, nationally.

Okay...more Governors...as previously demonstrated...without doing a lot more digging, this says very little about what "American people" as a whole want.

I didn't provide any "stats". I provided facts. And there's no even split. There are currently 30 Republican governors.

Yes...but that in no way means that 60% of American people prefer Republicans...because of the varying terms and election years, it would take awhile to put together that data...and some of them go pretty far back. The point being...because of the size of the states, having more governors does not mean you have more American people...just like having control of the House does not mean more people voted for Republicans.

When we start electing governors of states based on the national popular vote, whatever those figures are, that's when those numbers would actually become relevant. As common sense would have it however, a resident of New York doesn't get any say in who should be the governor in Texas.

Right...it also doesn't meant the governor of Texas represents 'the American people"...he only represents the people of Texas.

So...my earlier "claim" implied that the Republican party might have more success if they tried to be more like "The American People"....now, you seem to be saying the term "The American People" does not mean most of the people in America...it means having the most little pockets of people even if those little pockets combined have less people than the big pockets.

Bottom line....in 2012, looking at House, Senate, President...more people voted for a Democrat to represent them.

grimreaper

11-05-2013, 10:02 PM

You asked what I claimed the "American People" want...well, American people refers to all Americans, of course. Otherwise I would have say "each state candidate should try to be more like the state people they want to represent"...of course this would sort of defeat the whole purpose of the parties as you'd have liberals in liberal states and being conservatives in conservative states...like the GOP doesn't have enough problems

We were talking about the how the party as whole might be more successful. My point was to "be more like the American people"...implying, as a whole, nationally.

What you are talking about does not exist. The "American People" don't vote "as a whole" for anything, even for President. Their vote counts as a part of their state, just as their vote for governor does. The same person that voted for Obama nationally, may have voted for a Republican for governor of their state...ditto for Congress and state legislature. So when you make this blanket statement:

Or to be more like the American people they want to represent.
which implies they do not represent the people, is not accurate and is disproven by the fact that the Republicans hold the majority of governorships and state legislatures.

Measure Man

11-05-2013, 10:04 PM

Interestingly, the country is trending Independent, not Democrat.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

That is interesting...and I count myself as Independent as well. I think a big part of that trend is because people who are in the center do not want to be associated with the label applied to each of the party fringe elements....

Like okay...if you tell people you are Democrat/Republican, they make a lot of assumptions about what you believe...and with both parties being somewhat polarized, a lot of those assumptions are not true about normal people...so we just say we're independent.

By...by the trending Democrat I was really just thinking in terms of 2010-2012 elections...and really I keep bringing this up, but am surprised the GOP does not seem to care that the Dems got more House votes...it was their wins in 2010 that let them set up their gerrymandering districts to keep control of the HOR, not their message...their message is becoming less popular (Nationally...wiht the American people as a whole) and I would think that would be troubling to them....of course for the representatives who have their districts solidly drawn so that they can get reelected anyway, maybe it doesn't matter to them locally....but for the national party it should be concerning.

To write off states like Virginia (because they are just a bunch of liberals who voted for Obama last time)...and not try to figure how to win them....and not realizing that Tea Party guys like Cuccinelli is not the way to win them...they are probably doomed to failure in 2016 again.

grimreaper

11-05-2013, 10:14 PM

To write off states like Virginia (because they are just a bunch of liberals who voted for Obama last time)...and not try to figure how to win them....and not realizing that Tea Party guys like Cuccinelli is not the way to win them...they are probably doomed to failure in 2016 again.

Who's writing-off Virginia?

I already showed you that Cuccinelli is being massively outspent and Obama's bundlers are even helping to fund the LINO candidate's (Sarvis) campaign...and it will still probably be a close election. But yeah...lets keep blaming the Tea Party.

Measure Man

11-05-2013, 10:17 PM

What you are talking about does not exist. The "American People" don't vote "as a whole" for anything, even for President. Their vote counts as a part of their state, just as their vote for governor does. The same person that voted for Obama nationally, may have voted for a Republican for governor of their state...ditto for Congress and state legislature. So when you make this blanket statement:

which implies they do not represent the people, is not accurate and is disproven by the fact that the Republicans hold the majority of governorships and state legislatures.

Oh good grief...so your entire point is is that the "American People" do not exist because that's not how we vote?

Please, just stop.

Measure Man

11-05-2013, 10:21 PM

Who's writing-off Virginia?

I already showed you that Cuccinelli is being massively outspent and Obama's bundlers are even helping to fund the LINO candidate's (Sarvis) campaign...and it will still probably be a close election. But yeah...lets keep blaming the Tea Party.

Well...let's see...

Interesting take. Obama won Virginia in 2008 and 2012 and has they have 2 democratic senators. Trending more blue with each passing election.

I fail to see the correlation between Cuccinelli being conservative and that being the reason he might lose.

Oh, I don't know...because he's a Republican running in a State trending more and more Democratic?

Why is it Democrats typically win in blue states while Republicans typically win in red ones?

Yeah...I think it was you saying that the GOP should expect to lose in VA because the state is going Democrat...blue state...so nothing to see there.

Oh, so apparently money doesn't matter anymore. My bad...You should let Obama know since he felt he had to spend more than any other candidate in history to get elected.

CORNELIUSSEON

11-05-2013, 10:26 PM

Wise choice since he knows there is nothing he can do to stop the killing of babies from happening. He has his personal views, but if the country or population of the area isnt going to benifit or doesnt want it, why bring it up? Politicians shouldnt always be leaders, and in our republic, they need to follow what the voters that put them in the position want him to do.

Hes a "bully" to be one man and stand up to a crowd that out numebrs him? Thats funny.

He refuse the federal money why? Cause it was over budget? Cause it was behind in work? The Hurricane sandy thing is a mess, and I think this is what is really bringing him down with TEA party voters.

And if the state cant afford these centers, he should just keep them open because the people who work there need a job? Sorry, but if the population of the state isnt making enough to be taxed enough to support these freebies, why do you keep them open? Government should be ran like a business, because then more people would benefit, especially those that really need it.

Actually, he is a bully because he attacks individuals and tells them that what they ask or what they charge him with is none of their business. He wouldn't dream of attacking groups for exactly the reason you hint at.

As for the Centers, the inhabitants thereof - who number as high as 300 per installation - age from childhood to elderly, and were originally dropped off by their parents who couldn't - or wouldn't - continue to take care of them. They have various mental or physical issues that means that they cannot function in the outside world. Turning them out to Group Homes transfers the problem from the State to the local Community that must provide the locations for those group homes. The result is a version of "Out Of Sight -- Out Of Mind."

Measure Man

11-05-2013, 10:43 PM

When you stop trying to push the sheer nonsense that Republicans don't represent the "American People", I'll stop.

What's the difference...according to you they don't exist.

And don't look now, but the big fella considers himself a Conservative.

Oh, so apparently money doesn't matter anymore. My bad...You should let Obama know since he felt he had to spend more than any other candidate in history to get elected.

Of course money matters...you'd never catch me saying it doesn't.

CORNELIUSSEON

11-05-2013, 10:45 PM

Oh good grief...so your entire point is is that the "American People" do not exist because that's not how we vote?

Please, just stop.

What he means, is that with Gerrymandering the way it is today, the Republicans have control of significant chucks of individual States that gives them a measure of power in the State, and MAYBE at the Federal level as well. As such, the American population doesn't vote as a single block, but rather as their local situation requires. For example, New Jersey is largely a Blue State, except that - at the Congressional level, New Jersey is a Purple State, since the 12 Representatives are tied at 6--6 from each party. Likewise, the Legislature is split between the two parties 24D--16R for the upper house, and 48D--32R for the lower house. Christie is the other Republican.

Measure Man

11-05-2013, 10:49 PM

What he means, is that with Gerrymandering the way it is today, the Republicans have control of significant chucks of individual States that gives them a measure of power in the State, and MAYBE at the Federal level as well. As such, the American population doesn't vote as a single block, but rather as their local situation requires. For example, New Jersey is largely a Blue State, except that - at the Congressional level, New Jersey is a Purple State, since the 12 Representatives are tied at 6--6 from each party. Likewise, the Legislature is split between the two parties 24D--16R for the upper house, and 48D--32R for the lower house. Christie is the other Republican.

yeah...I get that...but when you use the term "The American People"....a person should realize you are talking about ALL the American people as a whole.

But, I sure hope the next time you guys hear Ted Cruz talk about how "The American People" don't want obamacare...you write him and say not only does he not speak for the American people, there is no such thing.

Measure Man

11-05-2013, 11:06 PM

When you stop trying to push the sheer nonsense that Republicans don't represent the "American People", I'll stop.

The represent SOME American People, sure. That wasn't really the discussion....let us recap.

I was noting that Christie is winning big in a traditional Demcrat state....Cuccinelli losing in a Republican state.

You stated VA is not a Republican state (even though the current gov is GOP...ha ha).

I said, Okay...so both states are now Democrat, yet Christie manages a big win

You: because of his personality, not his policies.

Me: Okay, so Democrat policies have become or are more popular in NJ and VA...therefore the GOP should "stick with their current policies"?

You: (sarcastically)...yeah, become more like our opponents so we can win.

Me: or like the people you want to represent...(take that how you want...the people of NJ to win in NJ...the people of VA to win in VA...or the people nationally to win nationally)...either way, by your own admittance, the people of NJ are Democrat...the people of VA are Democrat...and by my showing you, more Americans nationally voted Democrat.

Then you start this odd rambling about how those are Ameircan People because Republicans control the House, have more governors, etc.

Again...I think at that point we were not talking about a specific race

And don't look now, but the big fella considers himself a Conservative.

Here, I put in something about how "conservative" to Christie does not mean the same thing as "conservative" to the Tea Party and applied several links of support, hence the moderation

Google Christie Tea Party and/or Christie RINO...and you'll see how these folks feel about each other.

grimreaper

11-06-2013, 12:10 AM

The represent SOME American People, sure. That wasn't really the discussion....let us recap.

I was noting that Christie is winning big in a traditional Demcrat state....Cuccinelli losing in a Republican state.

You stated VA is not a Republican state (even though the current gov is GOP...ha ha).

I said, Okay...so both states are now Democrat, yet Christie manages a big win

You: because of his personality, not his policies.

Me: Okay, so Democrat policies have become or are more popular in NJ and VA...therefore the GOP should "stick with their current policies"?

You: (sarcastically)...yeah, become more like our opponents so we can win.

Me: or like the people you want to represent...(take that how you want...the people of NJ to win in NJ...the people of VA to win in VA...or the people nationally to win nationally)...either way, by your own admittance, the people of NJ are Democrat...the people of VA are Democrat...and by my showing you, more Americans nationally voted Democrat.

Then you start this odd rambling about how those are Ameircan People because Republicans control the House, have more governors, etc.

Again...I think at that point we were not talking about a specific race

Here, I put in something about how "conservative" to Christie does not mean the same thing as "conservative" to the Tea Party and applied several links of support, hence the moderation

Google Christie Tea Party and/or Christie RINO...and you'll see how these folks feel about each other.

I know the Tea Party and Christie have their differences...no links needed. But since you and him are apparently the experts at what a "Conservative" is, perhaps you could fill everyone in...

A conservative and a republican are not the same thing.

Measure Man

11-06-2013, 12:23 AM

I know the Tea Party and Christie have their differences...no links needed. But since you and him are apparently the experts at what a "Conservative" is, perhaps you could fill everyone in...

It's relative....Christie claims to be conservative...Tea Partiers would say he's not that conservative...some might say he's not at all what they feel is Conservative...Im sure you have the official approved definition and I don't really care. I never claimed to be an expert on what a Conservative is....(oooh...the Capital C Conservative, right?)...in general, sure, small govt., low taxes, individual liberty, free markets...one can be FOR those things in general, but not absolute...and can be more or less conservative than someone else who would also be considered conservative, wanting to lower income taxes to 10% would be a conservative opinion...but not conservative enough to someone who wnats to lower them to 5%...then we can go into semantics about Christian Conservatives and Political Conservatives....yada yada...what's the point you are trying to make? If I don't get the approved definition what point do you win?

Do you think the way toward the white house in 2016 for the GOP is more toward Ken Cuccinelli or more toward Chris Christie...or are you saying their policies are identical, only their personalities differ?

A conservative and a republican are not the same thing.

Okay...but we're talking about Republican chances going forward...

imnohero

11-06-2013, 12:37 AM

I've been following this thread loosely but the last couple pages caught my attention. Specifically the differentiation between one idea "what is a conservative?" A political philosophy question.

And a second idea, "How do Republican's win elections?" (whether that is the white house, congressional seat, governor, or local) Which is a practial politics question.

Though there is overlap between the two ideas, the second is (I would argue) was the Republic Party needs to figure out, especially in national level elections. The definition of "conservative" is less important than having the mix of policies and personality that makes the candiate viable to the public at large. Preferably, one would find a candidate that already has these things, but they can be "manufactured" (as it were).

CORNELIUSSEON

11-06-2013, 02:07 AM

yeah...I get that...but when you use the term "The American People"....a person should realize you are talking about ALL the American people as a whole.

But, I sure hope the next time you guys hear Ted Cruz talk about how "The American People" don't want obamacare...you write him and say not only does he not speak for the American people, there is no such thing.

Another point to consider: even the smallest US State - Rhode Island - has more politics going on than a similar Country elsewhere. New York City is larger than Singapore, both in terms of Area, and Population, and yet Singapore is a member of the United Nations and NYC is NOT.

AJBIGJ

11-06-2013, 02:16 AM

I've been following this thread loosely but the last couple pages caught my attention. Specifically the differentiation between one idea "what is a conservative?" A political philosophy question.

And a second idea, "How do Republican's win elections?" (whether that is the white house, congressional seat, governor, or local) Which is a practial politics question.

Though there is overlap between the two ideas, the second is (I would argue) was the Republic Party needs to figure out, especially in national level elections. The definition of "conservative" is less important than having the mix of policies and personality that makes the candiate viable to the public at large. Preferably, one would find a candidate that already has these things, but they can be "manufactured" (as it were).

I'm a bit amazed too by what transpired in the period of an afternoon and an evening in here. I think the second question is an interesting one, and is barely touched upon here with a very comprehensive answer.

The answer to the second question is quite simple, if only in its complexity. The way a party wins an election is to have the broader appeal to the most diverse demographics with the greatest number of people in them. That summarizes everything we need to know.

How to do that? Well there's another question. Does winning an election in NJ by even a landslide signify even a shot in Hades of winning a National election? Maybe, significantly different combinations of demographics are involved, plus the electoral college with states where you can practically count on 50+ electoral votes being counted against you before you leave the door. Especially when the states who might be a shoe-in for some feel kind of wishy-washy about you?

To me it seems that one side of the argument has its constituents on virtual lock-down because it has managed to secure the broadest range of demographics. The swing of things seem to happen a lot because, in my opinion, a whole large slew of people out there seem to care about social issues, three subgroups tend to be more sympathetic with the average voter on social issues, and the "conservative" subgroup is not among them. I think this is a priority for the widest range of American citizens, and I think this contributes to the broader appeal of those who are not the Bachman's and the Cuccinelli's.

Economics appeals to very few, to most they are quite boring and probably feel mostly like work, and most people agree we could cut a little fat as long as it's not our own fat. I would say those that feel financial solvency is a pressing issue of our time are in the general minority in our overall population, it all comes down to what the individual believes to be the priority in the issues we face, not whether a solution is desirable.

Regardless, the key component of success or failure in the market are the resources devoted towards effective advertising. I would say the largest percentage of American voters respond to emotions rather than intellectual stimuli. This doesn't really apply more or less any which way, both "left" and "right" use demagoguery to skew the facts which do not support their talking points. The average Virginian voter probably has no concept of what a negligible effect the individual actions, even taken to extremis, of the state of Virginia will have towards global climate change, yet Terry McFail can run a successful campaign because a lot of storms hit our state lately and can convince the voter that we must "do something about it", regardless of the impacts based on second and third degree consequences will have to the remainder of the issues. Plus he can poke Ken Cucci-lacking because he takes a couple of far-right stances on social issues like abortion and homosexual marriage and come away as a Santorum.

Money is a factor, politics today is reliant upon the quantity of information communicated, not the quality. The worst position to be in during any election is the position being ignored, and that falls a distant third to the position being constantly mocked. I'm not taking a left-right stance here, just show me an election where this wasn't the case.

grimreaper

11-06-2013, 02:19 AM

But, I sure hope the next time you guys hear Ted Cruz talk about how "The American People" don't want obamacare...you write him and say not only does he not speak for the American people, there is no such thing.

Obamacare has been underwater in the polls since before it even passed.

Rainmaker

11-06-2013, 02:41 AM

Fat bastard get in ma belly Christie may be alot of things. but, conservative and moderate he is not (Read NEOCON). In other news Hostess snack cakes just announced it's moving it's production facilities to Newark.

Obamacare has been underwater in the polls since before it even passed.

You can't have it both ways, grim...that is the most hypocritical argument I've seen in a while...you just spent pages arguing that even though more people supported Democrats nation-wide, this does not mean the American people do, since the AP do not get to vote nationally.

Since the American People do not vote nationally on whether or not to pass the ACA....he obviously can't say the American People oppose ACA...according to you.

Again...this is not my argument, it yours.

My argument would be...on that issue, he may be speaking for the American People...just like the Democrats may be overall...if you consider the 2012 nation-wide results as an indicator.

If your claim is that the Dems can't do that....they you must make the same for cruz...and say that "The American People" passed the ACA and have not repealed it, therefore they must still be in favor of it.

Of course, Cuccinelli made a big point that the VA election was a referendum on ACA....okay, what then does his loss say?

grimreaper

11-06-2013, 05:02 AM

You can't have it both ways, grim...since the American People do not vote nationally on whether or not to pass the ACA....he obviously can't speak for them...according to you.

Again...this is not my argument, it yours.

My argument would be...on that issue, he may be speaking for the American People...just like the Democrats may be overall...if you consider the 2012 nation-wide results as an indicator.

If your claim is that the Dems can't do that....they you must make the same for cruz...and say that "The American People" passed the ACA and have not repealed it, therefore they must still be in favor of it.

Not the same thing...not even close. These are national polls asking a very specific question. You, on the other hand, are claiming that if a particular person of a particular party is elected, then that means the "American People" support them and not the other, which is BS and you know it, considering that I very easily identified that your blanket statement that support for a particular party was nowhere near as cut and dry as you tried to make it out to be.

Now, I will ask you to provide evidence that a majority of Americans want Obamacare. As I already pointed out, it has been underwater in the polls since even before it passed, so do you have anything to the contrary that says otherwise? If you hadn't noticed, the President's approval just dipped into the 30's...think it's a coincidence that it happens at the same time we've witnessed gross incompetence and outright lies in regards to Obamacare? I think not.

Measure Man

11-06-2013, 05:29 AM

Not the same thing...not even close. These are national polls asking a very specific question. You, on the other hand, are claiming that if a particular person of a particular party is elected, then that means the "American People" support them and not the other, which is BS and you know it, considering that I very easily identified that your blanket statement that support for a particular party was nowhere near as cut and dry as you tried to make it out to be.

You talk more circles than a geometry teacher. If you are going to claim that a national poll represents the American People...then certainly actual voting should be even moreso.

Now, I will ask you to provide evidence that a majority of Americans want Obamacare.

I guess first you should find where I ever claimed that.

As I already pointed out, it has been underwater in the polls since even before it passed, so do you have anything to the contrary that says otherwise?

never argued that it was.

If you hadn't noticed, the President's approval just dipped into the 30's...think it's a coincidence that it happens at the same time we've witnessed gross incompetence and outright lies in regards to Obamacare? I think not.

Ted Cruz's national favorability is 26%...he can't even beat Obama...LOL

MitchellJD1969

11-06-2013, 08:42 AM

Not quite a "resounding" victory for McCauliffe. He won with 48 percent. Cuccinelli and Sarvis were 46% and 6% respectively, for a 52% combined. So a majority of Virginia voters did not want McCauliffe in office, but were divided about who it should have been instead of McCauliffe. Take Sarvis out and the 2% percent spread between Cuccinelli might have disapeared and the election might have went the other way. Sarvis was a Libertarian, so most likely he funneled votes from Cuccinelli rather than McCauliffe. From the Libertarian sites I visit, Team Blue (progressivism especially) seems to be disdained more than Team Red. The horrible launch of the ACA website and the fact that a lot of people being lied to about keeping their insurance also might have helped Cuccinelli close the gap.

A good strategy for the left would be to support 3d party candidates, splitting voters from the center right who are tired of establishment Repubs. That may have been done in Virginia this election, especially when the Dem establishment candidate could not garner even a majority of the vote and needed help splitting the center and rights vote.

Okie

11-06-2013, 09:40 AM

Sarvis was a Libertarian, so most likely he funneled votes from Cuccinelli rather than McCauliffe.

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion just yet. If you made a Venn diagram of LP principles and Sarvis's views, there would be little overlap. He's anti-borders, for higher taxes, and his economic views are closer to the photonegative of libertarian.

I find it not a little humorous that the two things I'm hearing out of the GOP followers are "the libertarians STOLE [or took] votes from Cuccinelli" and "people just voted for the 'L' after his name without realizing what he stood for." I can't decide which is more ironic - 1) the "party of personal responsibility" blaming Libertarians for their loss (as if those votes originally belonged to the R party) vice taking an honest, introspective look and trying to appeal to a broader base, or 2) the party who's always bashing "elites" engaging in, well, elitism.

AJBIGJ

11-06-2013, 12:14 PM

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion just yet. If you made a Venn diagram of LP principles and Sarvis's views, there would be little overlap. He's anti-borders, for higher taxes, and his economic views are closer to the photonegative of libertarian.

I find it not a little humorous that the two things I'm hearing out of the GOP followers are "the libertarians STOLE [or took] votes from Cuccinelli" and "people just voted for the 'L' after his name without realizing what he stood for." I can't decide which is more ironic - 1) the "party of personal responsibility" blaming Libertarians for their loss (as if those votes originally belonged to the R party) vice taking an honest, introspective look and trying to appeal to a broader base, or 2) the party who's always bashing "elites" engaging in, well, elitism.

Yeah, it's fairly well circulated among Libertarian think-tanks that Sarvis is not one who supports many positions a Libertarian typically might take. I honestly believe that he was more quasi-Progressive than Libertarian personally. Plus, the Paul's campaigned pretty hard for Cuccinelli, love them or hate them yourselves one would have to admit Ron and Rand are fairly influential in Libertarian circles.

So what motivated the drive towards Sarvis? Honestly, I think he appealed to some out of a sort of "righteous anger" that his voice was not heard at the debates. Many Libertarians do feel such towards their candidates, and want to be taken seriously as a party. I can imagine those that are not significantly educated on the principles behind the ideology, they just really like government off their backs, might not recognize the differences between say Robert Sarvis and Milton Friedman.

Was this more a ding against Cuccinell or McAulliffe? I can't say, I am fairly convinced that Libertarians who make there decisions based on Free Markets and Economic Principles probably showed up to check Cuccinelli rather than Sarvis this go around. 6% was a substantial downtick from what Sarvis was polling in the primaries.

I think most of the anti-Cuccinelli angst probably had more than a little to do with Social policies. Abortion, Religion, so forth. That seems to be the trend in a lot of elections.

CORNELIUSSEON

11-06-2013, 01:36 PM

Not the same thing...not even close. These are national polls asking a very specific question. You, on the other hand, are claiming that if a particular person of a particular party is elected, then that means the "American People" support them and not the other, which is BS and you know it, considering that I very easily identified that your blanket statement that support for a particular party was nowhere near as cut and dry as you tried to make it out to be.

Now, I will ask you to provide evidence that a majority of Americans want Obamacare. As I already pointed out, it has been underwater in the polls since even before it passed, so do you have anything to the contrary that says otherwise? If you hadn't noticed, the President's approval just dipped into the 30's...think it's a coincidence that it happens at the same time we've witnessed gross incompetence and outright lies in regards to Obamacare? I think not.

Historically, the President has always lost followers following his second win for the simple reason that the Voters are now looking to see who will replace him in the next election. They know that he starts to slide into Lame Duck Land the minute the election is over, The proof of this is the fact that we already have two "probable" contenders for 2016: Hilliary and Christie, with Joe Biden a close third contender.

As for Obamacare, one thing most persons talking large about the ACA miss is how many people who either had Garbage health policies, or no health policies (they depended on the Emergency Room) are now lining up for solid health policies that will actually pay out in the Patient's favor WHEN (not IF) they get sick, and will pay for their Wellness visits which will catch issues early enough to prevent them from becoming serious issues.

People who have had solid health policies all along are NOT being impacted by the fact that the Insurance Companies are withdrawing those worthless policies because they realize that those policies are not going to be ignored. The Insurance industry used those garbage policies as their Private Piggy-bank to amass huge amounts of cash to cover their more expensive solid policies that MUST pay out when the holder gets sick.

Measure Man

11-06-2013, 03:07 PM

A good strategy for the left would be to support 3d party candidates, splitting voters from the center right who are tired of establishment Repubs.

It's not the establishment Repubs that those in the center right are most tired of....

AJBIGJ

11-06-2013, 03:21 PM

It's not the establishment Repubs that those in the center right are most tired of....

True to an extent, but I would contend that is wholly dependent on the types of issues being discussed. I'm not sure if anti-Syrian interventionists are pissed at John McCain because they're extremist right wing. I think this is wholly more nuanced than the way it's being presented here or anywhere in the media. We seem inclined to explain away what we believe "the majority of Americans think" when in truth, the majority of Americans think a whole slew of different things. We all have our priorities and we all have our opinions, we tend to place the emphasis where our priorities and opinions most closely align and kind of consider the rest to be "acceptable losses".

Rainmaker

11-06-2013, 04:24 PM

All you need to know about Chris Christie can be learned from watching the Chosen News Network's reaction to his victory last night.

John king was practically dry humping his interactive white board while cheerleading "Populist" Christie's support amongst all the various virtuous minority groups.

Christie is the perfect stooge for Hill Billary's 2016 Coronation that the leftist PC media so desperately wants. Christie will get trounced. Just like some Bumbling, cartoonish, Fat White man playing the fool to the ever so sophisticated, mature female on practically every mass brainwashing Hollywood sitcom or commercial in the last 20 years.

grimreaper

11-06-2013, 04:53 PM

You talk more circles than a geometry teacher. If you are going to claim that a national poll represents the American People...then certainly actual voting should be even moreso.

Nope. You brought up a single issue, in which a poll question asks a very specific question. In your case then, you are implying that people are are single issue voters, not to mention the fact that you are still ignoring all of those same voters who elected Republicans in other races.

Republicans +400,000. I guess that means more people support Republicans now.:laugh

So...now you're taking 1 state's race and claiming it speaks for the American People?

grimreaper

11-06-2013, 05:12 PM

Uh...news flash...I didn't bring up the single issue, you did. It was Cuccinelli that claimed the VA vote was a referendum on ACA, not me.

Umm, yes you did. You brought up Ted Cruz and Obamacare.

So...now you're taking 1 state's race and claiming it speaks for the American People?

You just got done saying voting is more representative than a poll question, so you tell me.

CYBERFX1024

11-06-2013, 05:30 PM

The proof of this is the fact that we already have two "probable" contenders for 2016: Hilliary and Christie, with Joe Biden a close third contender.
As for Obamacare, one thing most persons talking large about the ACA miss is how many people who either had Garbage health policies, or no health policies (they depended on the Emergency Room) are now lining up for solid health policies that will actually pay out in the Patient's favor WHEN (not IF) they get sick, and will pay for their Wellness visits which will catch issues early enough to prevent them from becoming serious issues.
People who have had solid health policies all along are NOT being impacted by the fact that the Insurance Companies are withdrawing those worthless policies because they realize that those policies are not going to be ignored. The Insurance industry used those garbage policies as their Private Piggy-bank to amass huge amounts of cash to cover their more expensive solid policies that MUST pay out when the holder gets sick.

Joe Biden for President? Really? Gosh I would pack up the next day and move out of the country if that imbecile got to become President. The ONLY good thing about him is that a majority of the time there is no filter between his brain and his mouth.

Why is it that everyone trying to reconcile people losing their health coverage by saying "it's ok they were garbage policies anyway"? When the majority of healthy people want health insurance for those just in case issues not to cover their whole what if scenarios. I have Blue Shield of California right now and it's a pretty decent policy if I say so myself. I pay $300 a month out of pocket and it covers the majority of issues that come up with having a family. My wife just had our daughter via c section in August and she had to spend 3 days in the hospital. All I had to pay out of pocket from the whole thing was $450 out of almost a $20,000 bill, I call that a bargain.
I quoted prices on covered california and the cheapest policy is right at what I am paying now AFTER the subsidies. That also makes me pay a $40 copay everytime either me or one of my family goes to the doctor, not to mention the $30 copay I would have to pay when I get my generic prescription medication. When I am paying out of pocket right now $14 to get two generic medications through my insurance right now. I call that a farce if I say so myself

I know several young healthy people like me, who I work with right now that are going to opt out of getting insurance. They are choosing to pay the fine rather than have a high insurance bill.

grimreaper

11-06-2013, 05:37 PM

Joe Biden for President? Really? Gosh I would pack up the next and move out of the country if that imbecile got to become President. The ONLY good thing about him is that a majority of the time there is no filter between his brain and his mouth.

Why is it that everyone trying to reconcile people losing their health coverage by saying "it's ok they were garbage policies anyway"? When the majority of healthy people want health insurance for those just in case issues not to cover their whole what if scenarios. I have Blue Shield of California right now and it's a pretty decent policy if I say so myself. I pay $300 a month out of pocket and it covers the majority of issues that come up with having a family. My wife just had our daughter via c section in August and she had to spend 3 days in the hospital. All I had to pay out of pocket from the whole thing was $450 out of almost a $20,000 bill, I call that a bargain.
I quoted prices on covered california and the cheapest policy is right at what I am paying now AFTER the subsidies. That also makes me pay a $40 copay everytime either me or one of my family goes to the doctor, not to mention the $30 copay I would have to pay when I get my generic prescription medication. When I am paying out of pocket right now $14 to get two generic medications through my insurance right now. I call that a farce if I say so myself

I know several young healthy people like me, who I work with right now that are going to opt out of getting insurance. They are choosing to pay the fine rather than have a high insurance bill.

That's the current talking points from the White House and they are loyal parrots. Truth is that many are not "garbage" plans at all. They simply don't meet the requirements of the ACA, which include things like prenatal/maternity coverage. So if my plan lacked that, I would have my plan cancelled for not having maternity coverage.

Now, you need to turn the question back onto the people spouting that nonsense about garbage plans and ask them why people who are biologically incapable of having a child (single men, men/women that have been "fixed", women beyond childbearing years, etc), need to have a plan which includes that and why their current plan should be cancelled simply because it doesn't have that. Not to mention that these "new plans" costs more in both terms of premiums and deductible. So people are paying more for things they will NEVER use.

They have no answer. It's no different than a homeowner being told by the government they have to have a policy that covers a garage even if they don't have one.

Measure Man

11-06-2013, 05:46 PM

Umm, yes you did. You brought up Ted Cruz and Obamacare.

Oh yeah...that's right...in response to your assertion that there is no such thing as the "American People"...I remembered TC claiming that as well. OK.

You just got done saying voting is more representative than a poll question, so you tell me.

Well...it would be if we're talking about the people of New Jersey...but, since we were talking about the American People...then I wouldn't think that the votes within that one state say more about the American People.

grimreaper

11-06-2013, 05:51 PM

Well...it would be if we're talking about the people of New Jersey...but, since we were talking about the American People...then I wouldn't think that the votes within that one state say more about the American People.

Please...If a Democrat won the governorship in a state like Texas by hundreds of thousands of votes don't even try and tell me that the media wouldn't be making that very claim. You know they would be and certain people here would be repeating it.

Rainmaker

11-06-2013, 08:04 PM

Joe Biden for President? Really? Gosh I would pack up the next and move out of the country if that imbecile got to become President. The ONLY good thing about him is that a majority of the time there is no filter between his brain and his mouth.

Why is it that everyone trying to reconcile people losing their health coverage by saying "it's ok they were garbage policies anyway"? When the majority of healthy people want health insurance for those just in case issues not to cover their whole what if scenarios. I have Blue Shield of California right now and it's a pretty decent policy if I say so myself. I pay $300 a month out of pocket and it covers the majority of issues that come up with having a family. My wife just had our daughter via c section in August and she had to spend 3 days in the hospital. All I had to pay out of pocket from the whole thing was $450 out of almost a $20,000 bill, I call that a bargain.
I quoted prices on covered california and the cheapest policy is right at what I am paying now AFTER the subsidies. That also makes me pay a $40 copay everytime either me or one of my family goes to the doctor, not to mention the $30 copay I would have to pay when I get my generic prescription medication. When I am paying out of pocket right now $14 to get two generic medications through my insurance right now. I call that a farce if I say so myself

I know several young healthy people like me, who I work with right now that are going to opt out of getting insurance. They are choosing to pay the fine rather than have a high insurance bill.

You should've married an illegal alien instead. you wouldn't have had to pay anything. No fine and Medicade would've picked up the tab with no co-pay and Momma could've stayed in the hospital much longer than 3 days recuperating while little CYBERFX el menor's social security card and momma's passport was being processed.

Measure Man

11-06-2013, 08:17 PM

Please...If a Democrat won the governorship in a state like Texas by hundreds of thousands of votes don't even try and tell me that the media wouldn't be making that very claim. You know they would be and certain people here would be repeating it.

I don't speak for the media or any other people....but I don't see how they can claim that it would be representative of "All American People"...it might signal a shift that might have some implications, sure....which I think NJ does, which is why I started this thread in the first place.

I would think...that if the Dems had recently lost the Presidency...got outvoted, nationally, for Senate...and outvoted, nationally, for HOR....were polling nationally in historically low numbers....and suddenly one of them was able to grab a state like Texas by a wide majority...... then yes, they would say, "Hey, is there anything we as a party can learn there?...how did a Dem manage to win in Texas?"

At least if I was a Democrat, I would do that.... I certainly wouldn't just say ..."NAh, our candidate won only on personality...Texans still hate our policies, so let's keep them as is."

CYBERFX1024

11-06-2013, 08:37 PM

You should've married an illegal alien instead. you wouldn't have had to pay anything. No fine and Medicade would've picked up the tab with no co-pay and Momma could've stayed in the hospital much longer than 3 days recuperating while little CYBERFX el menor's social security card and momma's passport was being processed.

Sorry I married a LEGAL alien who I brought over here from the Philippines. We have known each other going on 4 years now and only last year I brought her here. She can't stand the illegal immigration argument. Because it makes people like her look stupid for having to wait in line to come here legally. We as a country accept more legal aliens every year than the rest of the world combined. So why should 11 million people automatically get citizenship for breaking the law?

CYBERFX1024

11-06-2013, 08:49 PM

I live in CA too...we just got a new Applebee's, so things are looking up here....
do you have any data to support the mass exodus from California...or just a couple people you know moved?

You point is moot now. I say that because you live in a military town here in CA. I will give you some respect and not name the place you live but it's a military town and it gets a large majority of it's money from the base located near by. So it does not coincide with what the rest of CA and what it is looking like economically.

Also you wanted some support for my claims that people are leaving California so here it is.

You point is moot now. I say that because you live in a military town here in CA. I will give you some respect and not name the place you live. But it's a military town and gets a majority of it's money from the base. So it does not coincide with what the rest of CA is looking like.

It would be a pretty tough sell to say military towns are a source of economic growth because of federal govt. nowadays....actually though, this city historically has one of the higher unemployment rates...12% right now...still better than it was a year ago, and it ain't because the base is hiring...as is the rest of California. To compare, Pasadena has 8.3% unemployment...North Carolina, 9.1%.

We can always nit-pick this place or that, overall, California can't complain I don't think, if you're going to discount all the places doing well and make your point with what is left...not all of Texas is doing as well as Texas overall, either...Starr, TX, 15.6% unemployment. So, I suppose the people there could say "texas sucks...the growth might be in Dallas, but it ain't here!"

http://www.homefacts.com/unemployment/

Anyway, the Applebee's comment was tongue-in-cheek anyway, they been trying to get that done for quite a few years...but if I'm following you, so far....Silicon Valley doesn't count, Military towns don't count....even Los Angeles is reporting steady economic growth...not a boom, but certainly not "hemoraghing" anything...even your own links say jobs aren't leaving....but, yeah, there is no question housing prices are going up and up, especially in LA. They are here too but not as fast, but that's more of a sign the economy is improving not getting worse...but, it does drive some people away. My wife and I have a number in our heads that if our house hits it, we're selling, cashing out and moving, too :-)...it wouldn't be any indication of our economy doing poorly though, quite the opposite, in fact.

From your sources:

This week, in fact, Texas Governor Rick Perry is in California, trying to lure businesses to his state. He won’t have much luck because jobs rarely move: in a typical year, just 25,000 jobs move out of California, and 16,000 jobs move in, out of an economy of 18 million jobs.

Who leads the charge out of California? Even though California’s richer residents face high tax rates, lower-income households are more likely to leave. From 2005 to 2011, California lost 158 people with household incomes under $20,000 for every 100 who arrived, and 165 for every 100 people with household incomes between $20,000 and $40,000. In contrast, just slightly more people with household incomes in the $100,000-$200,000 range left than came to California (103 out per 100 in), and California actually gained a hair more people in the $200,000+ range than it lost (99 out per 100 in). The rich aren’t leaving California, but the poor and the middle class are.

Also you wanted some support for my claims that people are leaving California so here it is.

Okay, I'll take that...my own daughter and her family left recently...not so much for taxes, but more for housing costs, just not liking the area they lived in and not seeing a future there (not the same place I live).

CYBERFX1024

11-06-2013, 10:43 PM

It would be a pretty tough sell to say military towns are a source of economic growth because of federal govt. nowadays....actually though, this city historically has one of the higher unemployment rates...12% right now...still better than it was a year ago, and it ain't because the base is hiring...as is the rest of California. To compare, Pasadena has 8.3% unemployment...North Carolina, 9.1%.
We can always nit-pick this place or that, overall, California can't complain I don't think, if you're going to discount all the places doing well and make your point with what is left...not all of Texas is doing as well as Texas overall, either...Starr, TX, 15.6% unemployment. So, I suppose the people there could say "texas sucks...the growth might be in Dallas, but it ain't here!"
Anyway, the Applebee's comment was tongue-in-cheek anyway, they been trying to get that done for quite a few years...but if I'm following you, so far....Silicon Valley doesn't count, Military towns don't count....even Los Angeles is reporting steady economic growth...not a boom, but certainly not "hemoraghing" anything...even your own links say jobs aren't leaving....but, yeah, there is no question housing prices are going up and up, especially in LA. They are here too but not as fast, but that's more of a sign the economy is improving not getting worse...but, it does drive some people away. My wife and I have a number in our heads that if our house hits it, we're selling, cashing out and moving, too :-)...it wouldn't be any indication of our economy doing poorly though, quite the opposite. Okay, I'll take that...my own daughter and her family left recently...not so much for taxes, but more for housing costs, just not liking the area they lived in and not seeing a future there (not the same place I live).

That's the big thing that is hurting me here in Pasadena. The housing costs are extravagant. If I want to move to a place where the housing is a pretty good price and the neighborhood is decent then I would have to live 45 minutes away in Rancho Cucamonga. I am quite happy with only living 2 miles from where I work though.

Pasadena unemployment is low because of everything that is here.

grimreaper

11-06-2013, 10:48 PM

I don't speak for the media or any other people....but I don't see how they can claim that it would be representative of "All American People"...it might signal a shift that might have some implications, sure....which I think NJ does, which is why I started this thread in the first place.

I would think...that if the Dems had recently lost the Presidency...got outvoted, nationally, for Senate...and outvoted, nationally, for HOR....were polling nationally in historically low numbers....and suddenly one of them was able to grab a state like Texas by a wide majority...... then yes, they would say, "Hey, is there anything we as a party can learn there?...how did a Dem manage to win in Texas?"

At least if I was a Democrat, I would do that.... I certainly wouldn't just say ..."NAh, our candidate won only on personality...Texans still hate our policies, so let's keep them as is."

Yeah, I bet the White House is absolutely thrilled about that 39% approval rating and that now poison pill called Obamacare. And this is just the beginning...wait until the employer mandate kicks in...I'm going to have my popcorn ready.

Measure Man

11-06-2013, 11:03 PM

Yeah, I bet the White House is absolutely thrilled about that 39% approval rating and that now poison pill called Obamacare. And this is just the beginning...wait until the employer mandate kicks in...I'm going to have my popcorn ready.

He must be at least as thrilled as Tea Party...with their 22% support rating.

grimreaper

11-06-2013, 11:34 PM

He must be at least as thrilled as Tea Party...with their 22% support rating.

The tea party is an idea. He is the President. As the President goes, so does his party. Let me know how the Republican party did in 2008 with GWB at the helm with his approval rating in the 30's...

CORNELIUSSEON

11-06-2013, 11:37 PM

Joe Biden for President? Really? Gosh I would pack up the next day and move out of the country if that imbecile got to become President. The ONLY good thing about him is that a majority of the time there is no filter between his brain and his mouth.

Why is it that everyone trying to reconcile people losing their health coverage by saying "it's ok they were garbage policies anyway"? When the majority of healthy people want health insurance for those just in case issues not to cover their whole what if scenarios. I have Blue Shield of California right now and it's a pretty decent policy if I say so myself. I pay $300 a month out of pocket and it covers the majority of issues that come up with having a family. My wife just had our daughter via c section in August and she had to spend 3 days in the hospital. All I had to pay out of pocket from the whole thing was $450 out of almost a $20,000 bill, I call that a bargain.
I quoted prices on covered california and the cheapest policy is right at what I am paying now AFTER the subsidies. That also makes me pay a $40 copay everytime either me or one of my family goes to the doctor, not to mention the $30 copay I would have to pay when I get my generic prescription medication. When I am paying out of pocket right now $14 to get two generic medications through my insurance right now. I call that a farce if I say so myself

I know several young healthy people like me, who I work with right now that are going to opt out of getting insurance. They are choosing to pay the fine rather than have a high insurance bill.

Be sure to tell them that they had best salt away every penny they earn in a good interest bearing account and keep the money there until they finally fall sick, because it will cost them every penny to pay the eventual bill.

Measure Man

11-06-2013, 11:55 PM

The tea party is an idea.

So is obamacare...43% approval.

grimreaper

11-06-2013, 11:57 PM

So is obamacare...43% approval.

LOL, Obamacare is an albatross and will continue to haunt Democrats through the midterms. And the funniest part is that it's only getting worse.

Measure Man

11-07-2013, 12:30 AM

LOL, Obamacare is an albatross and will continue to haunt Democrats through the midterms. And the funniest part is that it's only getting worse.

I know, right? And it STILL has nearly twice the approval rating of the Tea Party...LOL.

grimreaper

11-07-2013, 12:56 AM

I know, right? And it STILL has nearly twice the approval rating of the Tea Party...LOL.

LOL, it isn't the Tea Party that's going to be vaccuming money out of people's bank accounts.

CYBERFX1024

11-07-2013, 01:07 AM

LOL, it isn't the Tea Party that's going to be vaccuming money out of people's bank accounts.

Democrats have brought that idea forward to help pay down the debt. Cyprus did just that this past year.

grimreaper

11-07-2013, 01:15 AM

Democrats have brought that idea forward to help pay down the debt. Cyprus did just that this past year.

Are they going to use a dyson?

Measure Man

11-07-2013, 01:33 AM

LOL, it isn't the Tea Party that's going to be vaccuming money out of people's bank accounts.

I know right...I mean how bad of an idea do you have to be to have roughly HALF the support of another idea that will be taking people's money, ruining their healthcare, and destroying their budget...I mean, that's pretty damn low, right there.

I mean obamacare sucks more than a dyson...and is till twice as supported as Tea Party....I mean TP has gotta be like a jet intake or something

Rainmaker

11-07-2013, 03:57 AM

Sorry I married a LEGAL alien who I brought over here from the Philippines. We have known each other going on 4 years now and only last year I brought her here. She can't stand the illegal immigration argument. Because it makes people like her look stupid for having to wait in line to come here legally. We as a country accept more legal aliens every year than the rest of the world combined. So why should 11 million people automatically get citizenship for breaking the law?

Nex time call the amberlance on your obmao phone. it's free!

Measure Man

11-07-2013, 04:07 AM

Nex time call the amberlance on your obmao phone. it's free!

You mean your Reagan phone if using a land-line.... George W. Bush phone if it's a cell-phone...

Okie

11-07-2013, 04:54 AM

The Tea Party started as an anti-tax (at least anti-taxed as much as we are) movement that really wasn't aligned with a party. The GOP attempted to co-opt them with the Tea Party Express, or at least confuse low-information voters by conflating the two. Since then, social conservatives have jumped on board to some extent. I'm pretty sure if you asked 10 different people what the TP was, you'd get 10 different answers.

MM, I get that you and McCain are tired of folks like me (a libertarian). Libertarians will never be in charge because we don't play well with others. We don't like to organize. We don't like to foist our views on other people. I also get that the vast majority of Americans want to use the power of the federal government to force others to abide by THEIR beliefs.

Having said that, I don't see anybody in the R party (yourself included) to build consensus. The libertarians and the social conservatives have been told for years, "Shut up. Hold your nose and vote for our guy. Where else are you going to go?" Well, they're looking for other places to go. Like them or not, perhaps an adult conversation without the vitriol would prove productive. Otherwise, I know many folks who are more than content to let the GOP fail because we really don't see a big difference between Christie and Clinton.

AJBIGJ

11-07-2013, 12:28 PM

The Tea Party started as an anti-tax (at least anti-taxed as much as we are) movement that really wasn't aligned with a party. The GOP attempted to co-opt them with the Tea Party Express, or at least confuse low-information voters by conflating the two. Since then, social conservatives have jumped on board to some extent. I'm pretty sure if you asked 10 different people what the TP was, you'd get 10 different answers.

MM, I get that you and McCain are tired of folks like me (a libertarian). Libertarians will never be in charge because we don't play well with others. We don't like to organize. We don't like to foist our views on other people. I also get that the vast majority of Americans want to use the power of the federal government to force others to abide by THEIR beliefs.

Having said that, I don't see anybody in the R party (yourself included) to build consensus. The libertarians and the social conservatives have been told for years, "Shut up. Hold your nose and vote for our guy. Where else are you going to go?" Well, they're looking for other places to go. Like them or not, perhaps an adult conversation without the vitriol would prove productive. Otherwise, I know many folks who are more than content to let the GOP fail because we really don't see a big difference between Christie and Clinton.

There are certainly some differences, but neither really very close to the ideology being espoused:
Christie
3595
Hillary
3596

Measure Man

11-07-2013, 03:07 PM

The Tea Party started as an anti-tax (at least anti-taxed as much as we are) movement that really wasn't aligned with a party. The GOP attempted to co-opt them with the Tea Party Express, or at least confuse low-information voters by conflating the two. Since then, social conservatives have jumped on board to some extent. I'm pretty sure if you asked 10 different people what the TP was, you'd get 10 different answers.

MM, I get that you and McCain are tired of folks like me (a libertarian).

Actually, you don't get me at all.

I'm somewhat of a libertarian myself in many respects. Probably my #1 problem with the Tea Party is the social conservatives (see Santorum, Palin) , who are not libertarian at all, yet the libertarians seem content to align themselves with.

Also, maybe not the Tea Party as an organization, maybe so...the constant barrage of misinformation and outright lies, I get from people who at least call themselves Tea Partiers leaves me not wanting to support them. (see Allen West, Todd Starnes)

Libertarians will never be in charge because we don't play well with others.

This is not a libertarian ideal, although it does seem to be a source of pride for the Tea Party. I don't think it is anything to be proud of. And yes, the conduct of the so-called Tea Party caucus on capitol hill has turned me off of the movement. Vote your conscious, fine...try to convince other people, fine...but don't prevent a vote and shut down the place because you lost.

We don't like to organize. We don't like to foist our views on other people.

Again, then why align yourselves with the social conservatives who want to do exactly that? Why would you(as a group, not your personally) support someone like Cuccinelli?

I also get that the vast majority of Americans want to use the power of the federal government to force others to abide by THEIR beliefs.

Having said that, I don't see anybody in the R party (yourself included) to build consensus.

This is probably true for the next few years...eventually, they might get tired of getting beaten in national elections.

The libertarians and the social conservatives have been told for years, "Shut up. Hold your nose and vote for our guy. Where else are you going to go?" Well, they're looking for other places to go. Like them or not, perhaps an adult conversation without the vitriol would prove productive. Otherwise, I know many folks who are more than content to let the GOP fail because we really don't see a big difference between Christie and Clinton.

Most of the vitriol comes from those calling themselves Tea Party...and yes, many of us are tired of it.

AJBIGJ

11-07-2013, 03:31 PM

Most of the vitriol comes from those calling themselves Tea Party...and yes, many of us are tired of it.

I kind of wish myself that it was a bit less prominent, I'd say Libertarian Tea Party members (not one myself, but I share certain views) likely are drawn to the limited Constitutional government, I say you don't need to call yourself "Tea Party" to believe in that, and unfortunately the Tea Party has developed a certain "stigma" over the years since 2010, warranted or unwarranted. I think the biggest detriment to its cause is that it is anti-Obama all the time. I don't care for him much as a President myself, but I'll occasionally give credit where its due, and not in a way that implies "but..."

I think the fact that many of its members are essentially "Religious fundamentalists in a Tri-Cornered hat" is not helping its appeal any either.

It's time for truly Libertarian-minded individuals to distance themselves from the Tea Party. Those who like the ideology, whether they be more in line with Barry Goldwater and Ludwig Von Mises, or the South Park Creators and Howard Stern, or Penn Jillette, the need to see themselves as an individual with free thought first is of extreme importance. What drew me towards the Libertarian ideology originally was in part due to the ability of the vocal proponents to distance themselves from the rote talking points we see in the left-right paradigm. That hasn't been as evident in the past year, it probably will result in a few lost elections, and Bunch will probably get exactly what he stated he wants, but to paraphrase Ron Paul, there is no stopping the power of an idea.

Measure Man

11-07-2013, 03:56 PM

I kind of wish myself that it was a bit less prominent, I'd say Libertarian Tea Party members (not one myself, but I share certain views) likely are drawn to the limited Constitutional government, I say you don't need to call yourself "Tea Party" to believe in that, and unfortunately the Tea Party has developed a certain "stigma" over the years since 2010, warranted or unwarranted. I think the biggest detriment to its cause is that it is anti-Obama all the time. I don't care for him much as a President myself, but I'll occasionally give credit where its due, and not in a way that implies "but..."

Yes...it's funny...I'm not an Obama supporter...but I always end up defending him because talking about his Presidency usually involves such claims as: he's a secret Muslim plotting to destroy America...he hates America...deriding himi as some lefty "Chosen One"...or deity, etc. It's never just "this could have been done better, this part was okay, this part not....it's this is his ploy to get most of the country of food stamps so he can control your lives, steal your guns, and rape your daughters...give it a rest, guys! I don't support him, but I don't think he is Satan incarnate either.

I think the fact that many of its members are essentially "Religious fundamentalists in a Tri-Cornered hat" is not helping its appeal any either.

"Not appealing" is an understatement.

It's time for truly Libertarian-minded individuals to distance themselves from the Tea Party.

I have a long time ago.

Those who like the ideology, whether they be more in line with Barry Goldwater and Ludwig Von Mises, or the South Park Creators and Howard Stern, or Penn Jillette, the need to see themselves as an individual with free thought first is of extreme importance. What drew me towards the Libertarian ideology originally was in part due to the ability of the vocal proponents to distance themselves from the rote talking points we see in the left-right paradigm. That hasn't been as evident in the past year

Or since 2010 pretty much.

The Tea Party was fairly popular until about that time...I believe the tide is turning though...the limited govt. idea will continue, sure...but the bastardization of that idea in the form of the Tea Party is going away, I believe.

, it probably will result in a few lost elections, and Bunch will probably get exactly what he stated he wants, but to paraphrase Ron Paul, there is no stopping the power of an idea.

Yeah...I was always a Ron Paul fan and still am, and I think he sort of planted the seeds of the Tea Party...now they boo him. With Palin's nomination in 2008, it started to become something entirely different. Still gained momentum through 2010 elections...and now seemed dominated by hate-filled, bumper-sticker slogans and Memes that I can't endorse.

Rainmaker

11-07-2013, 04:01 PM

This country only has one party. The welfare party, with the social welfare wing on the left and the corporate welfare wing on the right.

The strategy of both wings is the same. Grow the Free Shit Army. One wing wants dependent voters and the other wing wants Suppressed wages. The middle class taxpayer making between $50K-$250K is treading water trying not to get sucked under by the Free shit army undertow with the oligarch foot on his head.

Meanwhile the Central bankers print $85 billion a month to infinity. Think about that number. It's enough to buy 4,200 F-16s a month. Stated reason is to stimulate the economy. Think of the jobs that could be created with that money. The only thing it's stimulating is Wall street profits and big bank balance sheets. Twitter a company that has never turned a profit in it's history. But, it's supposedly "worth" $135B. The tea party was supposed to be about too big to fail raping of the taxpayer. It's been infiltrated by Neocons. Rainmaker is a conservative that will NEVER vote for another Republican candidate. He'll write in Mickey F'ing Mouse first. The GOP is dead party walking and the sooner it falls the better. Then we can get rid of the other head of the snake. the party of misfit toys

Measure Man

11-07-2013, 04:12 PM

This country only has one party. The welfare party, with the social welfare wing on the left and the corporate welfare wing on the right.

The strategy of both wings is the same. Grow the Free Shit Army. One wing wants dependent voters and the other wing wants Suppressed wages. The middle class taxpayer making between $50K-$250K is treading water trying not to get sucked under by the Free shit army undertow with the oligarch foot on his head.

I believe the "free shit" problem is greatly exaggerated by the right. As is the problem of illegals voting...and the problem of the war on Christmas...the idea that anything the govt. does is just a means to gain more control over our lives...

Meanwhile the Central bankers print $85 billion a month to infinity. Think about that number. It's enough to buy 4,200 F-16s a month. Stated reason is to stimulate the economy. Think of the jobs that could be created with that money. The only thing it's stimulating is Wall street profits and big bank balance sheets.

Trickle down, right?

Twitter a company that has never turned a profit in it's history. But, it's supposedly "worth" $135B. The tea party was supposed to be about too big to fail raping of the taxpayer. It's been infiltrated by Neocons. Rainmaker is a conservative that will NEVER vote for another Republican candidate. He'll write in Mickey F'ing Mouse first. The GOP is dead party walking and the sooner it falls the better. Then we can get rid of the other head of the snake. the party of misfit toys

AJBIGJ

11-07-2013, 04:14 PM

Yeah...I was always a Ron Paul fan and still am, and I think he sort of planted the seeds of the Tea Party...now they boo him. With Palin's nomination in 2008, it started to become something entirely different. Still gained momentum through 2010 elections...and now seemed dominated by hate-filled, bumper-sticker slogans and Memes that I can't endorse.
In my opinion, I would caveat that statement to say that those voices speak the loudest, and the media megaphone happily amplifies them because it fits into their agenda as well to make it the "confederate flag waving" Tea Party. This is why I think it needs to disperse and that its inhabitants need to re-identify themselves. My preference is that this nation would become a nation of genuine independents, but collective groupthink is too far ingrained in our culture to go away entirely. I personally was not inclined to agree with Karl Rove when he basically stated that the Tea Party shouldn't take their stand here (on the shutdown) that we should just let certain events unfold and the problem will sort of "work itself out" as we're seeing with the rollout. I'm starting to see his points in the matter. The infallible way to win an argument is to let the child touch the stove and find out themselves it was not the best idea.

Rainmaker

11-07-2013, 04:19 PM

You can learn alot more by observing than believing and yes, at the end of it, a good piss trickles....

Measure Man

11-07-2013, 04:27 PM

In my opinion, I would caveat that statement to say that those voices speak the loudest, and the media megaphone happily amplifies them because it fits into their agenda as well to make the the "confederate flag waving" Tea Party.

I dunno...people listen to the media they want. Having been in the military a long time...a lot of my friends and colleagues are conservative, it seems. A typical day reading my FB goes somethign like this:

Tommy status: (Newsourse: Starnes, Allen West--The Obama Aministration is throwing Christians in jail for saying they believe in Jesus) This is OUTRAGEOUS...Obama is actually gotten now where he can throw people in jail for professing Jesus

Jane comment: Wake-up, America

Bill comment: I'm buying up all the Ammo I can...they are coming for us, people

Joe comment: O'dumbo at it again, I'm not surprised

Phil comment: JESUS, JESUS, JESUS

Measure Man comment: Uh...guys...read...this guy killed his wife, and three children and claimed Jesus told him to...and was arrested by the FBI, who are yes, technically part of the Obama Administration, but this has nothing to do with Obama

Tommy comment: DId you hear how Obama is trying to make the male Marines wear panties?

..these are actually people I know and like.

This is why I think it needs to disperse and that its inhabitants need to re-identify themselves. My preference is that this nation would become a nation of genuine independents, but collective groupthink is too far ingrained in our culture to go away entirely.

And why I can only call myself "Independent"

I personally was not inclined to agree with Karl Rove when he basically stated that the Tea Party shouldn't take their stand here (on the shutdown) that we should just let certain events unfold and the problem will sort of "work itself out" as we're seeing with the rollout. I'm starting to see his points in the matter. The infallible way to win an argument is to let the child touch the stove and find out themselves it was not the best idea.

There is something to that...if Obamacare is the utter failure of high costs, no care and death panels that Repbulicans claim it is...then they should have no problem winning in 2016. 2014 might be too soon for them to recover from the shutdown.

AJBIGJ

11-07-2013, 04:41 PM

I dunno...people listen to the media they want. Having been in the military a long time...a lot of my friends and colleagues are conservative, it seems. A typical day reading my FB goes somethign like this:

To be clear, I wasn't implying all media is "liberal" media, but that controversy sells regardless of the source of bias. People are still after George Zimmerman as if he was Osama Bin Laden, regardless of one's opinion of the situation and the trial itself one has to admit the controversy has more than run its course. People very naturally mimic what they hear on a recurring basis, it's a subtle form of brainwashing. I find myself using the phrase "In my opinion" a lot more due in part to a whole slew of alcohol fueled Milton Friedman Youtube video marathons and I have to admit that's had its impacts. I think nobody is immune, but I think the best critical thinkers tend to at least acknowledge it.

Rainmaker

11-07-2013, 05:00 PM

Actually, you don't get me at all.

I'm somewhat of a libertarian myself in many respects. Probably my #1 problem with the Tea Party is the social conservatives (see Santorum, Palin) , who are not libertarian at all, yet the libertarians seem content to align themselves with.

Also, maybe not the Tea Party as an organization, maybe so...the constant barrage of misinformation and outright lies, I get from people who at least call themselves Tea Partiers leaves me not wanting to support them. (see Allen West, Todd Starnes)

This is not a libertarian ideal, although it does seem to be a source of pride for the Tea Party. I don't think it is anything to be proud of. And yes, the conduct of the so-called Tea Party caucus on capitol hill has turned me off of the movement. Vote your conscious, fine...try to convince other people, fine...but don't prevent a vote and shut down the place because you lost.

Again, then why align yourselves with the social conservatives who want to do exactly that? Why would you(as a group, not your personally) support someone like Cuccinelli?

This is probably true for the next few years...eventually, they might get tired of getting beaten in national elections.

Most of the vitriol comes from those calling themselves Tea Party...and yes, many of us are tired of it.

So, what if you don't want to be forced to buy medical insurance or face a fine? or don't wan't your tax dollars used to pay for other people's abortions? or don't want your previously middle class neighborhood turned into a REO/ taxpayer funded section 8 slum? or don't want to have to confront drug mules on your property? or don't want your 8 year old daughter to be exposed to deviant websites when your trying to google information to help her with her homework?.....
I guess it means you're a white racist ,religious fundamentalist, conservative.

Measure Man

11-07-2013, 05:13 PM

So, what if you don't want to be forced to buy medical insurance or face a fine?

Vote against it.

or don't wan't your tax dollars used to pay for other people's abortions?

or don't want your 8 year old daughter to be exposed to deviant websites when your trying to google information to help her with her homework?...

Aren't their Kid-firendly search engines?

I don't know the answer to this...do you have a proposed solution? Is the answer a .xxx internet? Are you saying the govt. needs to control the internet because you can't protect your child on it? If so, you are no libertarian, sir.

I guess it means your a racist conservative.

Not following you....have I ever called anyone a racist for any of this?

Are you saying that...since you don't want these things, and have not won a majority of votes, that you're then within your rights to shut down the govt.? Will you then accept the same action from those that feel differently than you do about things?

Like...someone who wants a universal single-payer govt. medical system...should they just shut down the govt. if they don't get their way?

Like...someone who doesn't want their taxes going to pay for military chaplains...what do you think they should do?

Like...someone who pays for private internet service so they can enjoy legal pornography with their spouse from a private website they also pay for?

Bottom line is we live in a very diverse country and you're not going to always get your way....we can't all go around shutting the place down and throwing a tantrum just because we're in the minority.

Rainmaker

11-07-2013, 05:33 PM

Vote against it.

Vote against it.

Vote against it.

...tough one, no one wants crime on their property.

Aren't their Kid-firendly search engines?

I don't know the answer to this...do you have a proposed solution? Is the answer a .xxx internet? Are you saying the govt. needs to control the internet because you can't protect your child on it? If so, you are no libertarian, sir.

Not following you....have I ever called anyone a racist for any of this?

Are you saying that...since you don't want these things, and have not won a majority of votes, that you're then within your rights to shut down the govt.? Will you then accept the same action from those that feel differently than you do about things?

Like...someone who wants a universal single-payer govt. medical system...should they just shut down the govt. if they don't get their way?

Like...someone who doesn't want their taxes going to pay for military chaplains...what do you think they should do?

Like...someone who pays for private internet service so they can enjoy legal pornography with their spouse from a private website they also pay for?

Bottom line is we live in a very diverse country and you're not going to always get your way....we can't all go around shutting the place down and throwing a tantrum just because we're in the minority.

Rainmaker don't care if the GOP resurect Ronnie Ray gun hisself and put him on the ticket. Rainmaker already said he voting for Mickey Mouse. Rainmaker don't consider hisself No Libertarian. Most so called "Libertarians" today are just obese college kids that want to be able to legally smoke pot in their parent's basement.

The Tea Party has been subverted (see Milfchelle Bachman). past time for GOP to go the way of the dodo bird. NeoCONS kilt it. It's too corrupt to reform now and so the quicker it goes the better. It's kind of like fighting the Axis powers and GOP are like Vichy France in the battle. Peoples have to focus on the task at hand. Then we can move on to dismantaling the Free Shit Army.

Okie

11-08-2013, 03:30 AM

I disagree with that assessment. I think moderate Romney would have easily won the election...it was the Tea Party Romney that was created during the primaries that lost the general election.

I was wondering if you could flesh out that comment a little bit, please. I'm curious what you mean. Speaking for myself, I saw Romney as a windsock, trying to blow with the wind. He had more positions on both sides of various issues (e.g. on abortion and gun control) than a veteran hooker. I've seen a pretty funny mash-up of many of his contradictory statements. His only real interest seemed to be getting elected.

The GOP elected Romney in the past primary so they value electability. The question is... How far to the right will Christie will have to position himself to win the primary or will he elect to fight the extreme right wing candidates straight up with a more moderate message?

Romney decided to position himself to the far right and after 100 debates he couldn't convince enough moderates that he was a right of center candidate. Perhaps they checked his voting record. Saying your "right of center" and being the RomneyCare guy vying to lead the party against ObamaCare creates just a tad of cognitive dissonance.

There are certainly some differences, but neither really very close to the ideology being espoused:
Christie
3595
Hillary
3596

Point taken, but when your ideology is toward the top peak of the graph, the linear distance from you to either Hilary or Christie is darn near negligible.

Okie

11-08-2013, 03:59 AM

Actually, you don't get me at all.

That's precisely the reason I'm asking.

I'm somewhat of a libertarian myself in many respects. Probably my #1 problem with the Tea Party is the social conservatives (see Santorum, Palin) , who are not libertarian at all, yet the libertarians seem content to align themselves with.

Sorry, I mistook you for a moderate Republican, as that's who you seem to support. Speaking only for myself, I enjoyed having Palin as governor in Alaska. Then-Gov Frank Murkowski had grown deaf to the will of the people. She did an end-run around the Republican establishment and did some much-needed housecleaning. Was she ready for prime-time as a national VP candidate? Heck, no. I think the reason you see some libertarians align with social conservatives is that there needs to be some sort of coalition to win. I think they see the chances of the social conservatives advancing their agenda nationally as so small as to make the coalition worth it. For example, Palin may personally be conservative, but I don't recall her trying to foist that on the people of Alaska legislatively.

This is not a libertarian ideal, although it does seem to be a source of pride for the Tea Party. I don't think it is anything to be proud of. And yes, the conduct of the so-called Tea Party caucus on capitol hill has turned me off of the movement. Vote your conscious, fine...try to convince other people, fine...but don't prevent a vote and shut down the place because you lost.

I was unclear. What I meant was, as a general rule, libertarians are more principle-oriented than pragmatic. Trying to get one to compromise on his principles and vote for a not-quite-as-big-government-as-the-other-guy Republican just so Team Elephant can win is a hard sell, especially when the GOP (as a party) has ignored them after the election. I realize this statement goes against about the trend of some aligning with social conservatives, but I think what I said above about it being a calculated risk that their social policies would likely be shot down makes them make an exception.

Having said that, I don't know that it's the libertarians moving toward the social conservatives instead of the social conservatives saying, "Yeah, I agree with the Tea Party. And while we're at it, let's add this, and this, and this..." As you and I both pointed out, it's a squishy definition. You surprised me with what you found on the TP website. I was operating on the original definition.

Again, then why align yourselves with the social conservatives who want to do exactly that? Why would you(as a group, not your personally) support someone like Cuccinelli?

As someone who has no ties to VA, I only paid attention the last week or so, when it started to get national attention. I really didn't see a candidate I liked.

This is probably true for the next few years...eventually, they might get tired of getting beaten in national elections.

Interesting, considering a "moderate" candidate hasn't really done too well since at least '92. Bush II barely squeaked by in '00. I'm not saying moderates don't have good ideas. I'm just pointing out they can't do it by themselves, and that goes both ways.

Most of the vitriol comes from those calling themselves Tea Party...and yes, many of us are tired of it. A tu quoque argument. As I've said, I have had the likes of McCain disparaging me for more than a few years. It's wrong on both sides. The GOP can either keep alienating folks like me, or they can work with folks like me. Their choice.

AJBIGJ

11-08-2013, 04:12 AM

Point taken, but when your ideology is toward the top peak of the graph, the linear distance from you to either Hilary or Christie is darn near negligible.

I think that's the crux of the discussion, where a person's priorities lie. If you're hard to a direction on social issues, your ability to communicate with someone with a strong economic stance will be near to negligible. I have yet to meet a strong Obama supporter based on his economic stances, I think that's why hard liner "Libertarians" fail to communicate with them. While both entities mostly agree on social issues, when discussing Economics they might as well be speaking Portuguese.

Measure Man

11-08-2013, 01:57 PM

I was wondering if you could flesh out that comment a little bit, please. I'm curious what you mean. Speaking for myself, I saw Romney as a windsock, trying to blow with the wind. He had more positions on both sides of various issues (e.g. on abortion and gun control) than a veteran hooker. I've seen a pretty funny mash-up of many of his contradictory statements. His only real interest seemed to be getting elected.

Just my personal observation...during the primary with the how ever many debates those guys had...it seems they were all sprinting to get as far right as possible.

But yes, there is a lot to what you say...that he will say what he thinks his audience wants to hear, it just seemed to me in the primaries he was speaking to a very conservative audience. Did you hear anything other than...no abortion, no gun control, kick out all illegals, cut spending...during the primary?

Measure Man

11-08-2013, 02:10 PM

Sorry, I mistook you for a moderate Republican, as that's who you seem to support.

I voted for Gary Johnson.

...but, i would rather vote for Charles Manson than Rick Santorum.

AJBIGJ

11-08-2013, 02:34 PM

I voted for Gary Johnson.

...but, i would rather vote for Charles Manson than Rick Santorum.

I did the same thing, as I thought similar things. I think I would've punched the ticket for Obama if it appeared that Santorum would be the winner of that race.

grimreaper

11-08-2013, 04:03 PM

I voted for Gary Johnson.

...but, i would rather vote for Charles Manson than Rick Santorum.

LOL, must have been the sweater vests.

Okie

11-09-2013, 03:35 AM

Just my personal observation...during the primary with the how ever many debates those guys had...it seems they were all sprinting to get as far right as possible.

But yes, there is a lot to what you say...that he will say what he thinks his audience wants to hear, it just seemed to me in the primaries he was speaking to a very conservative audience. Did you hear anything other than...no abortion, no gun control, kick out all illegals, cut spending...during the primary?

Gotcha. I was busy not believing him because (like Obama in '08) the words coming out of his mouth did not match up with his record. Of course, he spent a good part of the presidential debates repudiating the very positions he advocated in the primary.

Who know that all 3 of Gary Johnson's voters were here on MTF? :D

Measure Man

11-09-2013, 04:00 AM

Who know that all 3 of Gary Johnson's voters were here on MTF? :D

He was the most successful candidate the Libertarian party has ever run...if I remember correctly.

AJBIGJ

11-09-2013, 05:06 AM

He was the most successful candidate the Libertarian party has ever run...if I remember correctly.

Very probably, as I'm sure Sarvis was pretty high on the list itself for governor's races, despite the stigma, and I didn't even check the block for him (or anyone else, I had duty that day and neglected to plan to go absentee). I think the ideology itself is picking up some steam if for no other reason than the state of of the statist status quo.

Bunch

11-09-2013, 12:59 PM

Can someone explain to me why the majority thinks that the libertarian vote is exclusively conservative? I have met many people that vote democrat but in their core they have libertarian views. I have some libertarian views myself.

TJMAC77SP

11-09-2013, 01:59 PM

Can someone explain to me why the majority thinks that the libertarian vote is exclusively conservative? I have met many people that vote democrat but in their core they have libertarian views. I have some libertarian views myself.

For the same reason that many seem to think that conservatives are racist and against the poor.......................ignorance.

Okie

11-09-2013, 02:26 PM

He was the most successful candidate the Libertarian party has ever run...if I remember correctly.

For the record, I was including myself in the "3".

CYBERFX1024

11-09-2013, 02:43 PM

I understand that Christie to a lot of diehard conservatives is a RINO. But honestly someone like him will be our best chance of regaining the White House in 2016. So it pisses me off when people on both sides want to make fun of his weight. So he is a big guy, at least he is taking steps to lose the weight. But what Chris Matthews just did is beyond reproach and is just down right disgusting in my view.

Yea, I don't know what to make of matthews. He's both a brilliant political analyst and a partisan hack. This sort of thing isn't "out of character" for him, he clearly knows better, but somehow just can't resist making these sort of "jokes."

He may be "playing to his audience", maybe he just hates republicans that much. I don't know, but it's one of the reasons I don't watch his show.

CYBERFX1024

11-09-2013, 03:41 PM

Yea, I don't know what to make of matthews. He's both a brilliant political analyst and a partisan hack. This sort of thing isn't "out of character" for him, he clearly knows better, but somehow just can't resist making these sort of "jokes."
He may be "playing to his audience", maybe he just hates republicans that much. I don't know, but it's one of the reasons I don't watch his show.

Honestly I think he is playing to his audience. Because I listened to him on the radio and he was stating that people need to watch more than just one channel. They need to branch out and listen to varying news outlets. He actually made sense which is weird.

Rusty Jones

11-10-2013, 11:09 AM

No... it's because the policies they push, if and when implemented, have a disproportionate adverse impact on minorities and the poor. And then they hide behind "colorblindness" to act as if they didn't know this.

TJMAC77SP

11-10-2013, 12:39 PM

No... it's because the policies they push, if and when implemented, have a disproportionate adverse impact on minorities and the poor. And then they hide behind "colorblindness" to act as if they didn't know this.

As I said, ignorance.

Let me guess, you would cite voter ID laws as an example correct.

Maybe you are right. There is not need to reign in government spending, particularly on entitlement programs. At this rate my great grandchildren will need those entitlement programs.

sandsjames

11-10-2013, 02:19 PM

As I said, ignorance.

Let me guess, you would cite voter ID laws as an example correct.

Maybe you are right. There is not need to reign in government spending, particularly on entitlement programs. At this rate my great grandchildren will need those entitlement programs.

We will turn into Kuwait, so don't worry. All of our laborers will be TCN's and everyone else will receive everything from the government. Well, I guess the TCN's will be receiving the government money too, but we'll be fine, don't you worry.

CORNELIUSSEON

11-10-2013, 04:03 PM

Can someone explain to me why the majority thinks that the libertarian vote is exclusively conservative? I have met many people that vote democrat but in their core they have libertarian views. I have some libertarian views myself.

The reason is because most people alive today do not know of the origins of the Libertarian Movement.

Click on the following link and find out:

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

Rusty Jones

11-10-2013, 10:32 PM

As I said, ignorance.

No, truth. You're in denial.

Lee Atwater even said himself that this was part of the Southern Strategy.

Rusty Jones

11-10-2013, 10:45 PM

Notice how you never tried to dispute this statement in your response:

No... it's because the policies they push, if and when implemented, have a disproportionate adverse impact on minorities and the poor.

You didn't try to dispute it. You responded with a red herring.

I challenge any conservative - or Libertarian, since they think they don't count as conservatives - to dispute this. I bet you can't.

sandsjames

11-10-2013, 11:19 PM

No... it's because the policies they push, if and when implemented, have a disproportionate adverse impact on minorities and the poor. And then they hide behind "colorblindness" to act as if they didn't know this.

It wouldn't have an impact on "minorities and the poor". It would have an impact on the poor. The fact that many of those happen to be minorities is irrelevant.

TJMAC77SP

11-10-2013, 11:23 PM

No, truth. You're in denial.

Lee Atwater even said himself that this was part of the Southern Strategy.

That is your response? A single quote from 1980 said by a guy who died in 1991 and THAT is your summation of the GOP platform in 2013.

I was starting to feel bad about my use of the word ignorant..............not so much now.

EDIT: I would also suggest you research the interview you cite on a more independent source.

TJMAC77SP

11-10-2013, 11:29 PM

Notice how you never tried to dispute this statement in your response:

You didn't try to dispute it. You responded with a red herring.

I challenge any conservative - or Libertarian, since they think they don't count as conservatives - to dispute this. I bet you can't.

Were you talking to me?

Your accusation implies that the end result is the desired result (hurt minorities and the poor). This is ignorance. If entitlement programs are reigned in yes some people on those programs are going to be hurt.

Much like when defense spending is cut (as it is being cut right now) many companies are going to be directly effected and people are going to lose their jobs. Wait, change that........people ARE losing their jobs.

But..................I don't think that is the ultimate goal of the Obama Administration.

Okie

11-11-2013, 04:59 AM

I challenge any conservative - or Libertarian, since they think they don't count as conservatives - to dispute this. I bet you can't.

What's racial about believing that people are better equipped to be the masters of their own destiny than teaching them to be dependent on a system that sets out to exploit them? Poor and minorities have been told to vote Democrat for generations, yet their situation has not improved. How has Democratic power improved the lot of poor and minorities in Detroit or Chicago, for instance?

One of my best friends grew up dirt poor and never got went to college. He's a super-hard worker, and he's never taken a dime of welfare. He has a good enough job that his wife can stay home and raise their son. Because he's a hard worker, he's usually got folks banging on his door to come work for them. A couple of years back, he got a raise. Because he jumped into a higher tax bracket, his take-home was actually LESS than before. How is THAT fair? Many folks stay on welfare because they can make more money than they can by actually getting a job. That teaches dependency. Wouldn't you rather learn an actual SKILL that can put food in your mouth? What if the government shuts down or fails? What's your plan if the checks stop coming?

Libertarianism is about faith in the individual; liberalism is about faith in government. Which shows more respect to someone, regardless of skin color? From what I've seen, lack of opportunity is not the problem; lack of willingness to get off one's couch is. Even in today's market, my wife has no problem finding a job wherever we move to, largely because she's WILLING to work.

If you want to talk incarceration rates, libertarians believe we should de-criminalize drugs. That would release a lot of people from our prisons. This would disproportionately benefit the African-American (or whatever the PC word for "melanin-enriched" is these days). How on earth is THAT racist?

Just because you can't see past your skin color doesn't mean others can't.

Rusty Jones

11-11-2013, 05:54 PM

That is your response? A single quote from 1980 said by a guy who died in 1991 and THAT is your summation of the GOP platform in 2013.

Anything said after Nixon implemented the Southern Strategy is still relevant (and 1980 is well after that), since that's what the GOP still operates off of. When he died is irrelevant.

I was starting to feel bad about my use of the word ignorant..............not so much now.

EDIT: I would also suggest you research the interview you cite on a more independent source.

You mean a conservative apologetic site that tries to talk itself away from what was said? No thank you.

Rusty Jones

11-11-2013, 06:01 PM

Were you talking to me?

Your accusation implies that the end result is the desired result (hurt minorities and the poor). This is ignorance. If entitlement programs are reigned in yes some people on those programs are going to be hurt.

Much like when defense spending is cut (as it is being cut right now) many companies are going to be directly effected and people are going to lose their jobs. Wait, change that........people ARE losing their jobs.

But..................I don't think that is the ultimate goal of the Obama Administration.

Here's the difference. Conservatives know fully well the result of their policies, and don't include anything in their policies to mitigate those results. That shows that those results are desired.

TJMAC77SP

11-11-2013, 07:32 PM

Anything said after Nixon implemented the Southern Strategy is still relevant (and 1980 is well after that), since that's what the GOP still operates off of. When he died is irrelevant.

Now the desperation is seeping into the argument.

You mean a conservative apologetic site that tries to talk itself away from what was said? No thank you.

Let's review my actual words.

..................................EDIT: I would also suggest you research the interview you cite on a more independent source.

Of course I guess if you consider any source that says anything other than what completely supports your assertion then yes it will be an uphill battle.

TJMAC77SP

11-11-2013, 07:34 PM

Here's the difference. Conservatives know fully well the result of their policies, and don't include anything in their policies to mitigate those results. That shows that those results are desired.

So by extension the Democrats have no idea of the results of their policies?

As I said, your argument is ignorant of reality.

Rusty Jones

11-11-2013, 08:16 PM

Now the desperation is seeping into the argument.

Nah, just something you don't want to face. Until the GOP ditches the Southern Strategy, what Lee Atwater says is still relevant.

Let's review my actual words.

Of course I guess if you consider any source that says anything other than what completely supports your assertion then yes it will be an uphill battle.

If you believe that what Lee Atwater said is irrelevant, then why point out "independent" commentary on it?

Rusty Jones

11-11-2013, 08:36 PM

So by extension the Democrats have no idea of the results of their policies?

I never denied that they did. However, they make every effort to mitigate those results. You guys don't call us "bleeding hearts" for nothing, correct?

As I said, your argument is ignorant of reality.

And here's where we get to the meat and potatoes of this discussion: YOU are ignorant of reality. Afterall, what IS reality? Perception. Perception is reality. The fact that perception is reality, is exactly why minorities and the poor - the very people who believe themselves to be victims of the GOPs policies - vote Democrat. It's why Democrats are winning elections.

You see, we can argue this all day. You can get clever with words and phrases, call me "ignorant" - hell, you can even outsmart me and WIN this argument - and every Democrat in the US can watch us go at it, ending with you verbally handing me my ass... but at the end of the day, all you would've done was win an argument, without actually convincing anyone of anything. Their perception of the GOP doesn't change. Their perception of the GOP is their reality. And they're going to vote accordingly.

And you can respond to me by bashing such voters... by saying that they're dependent on the government, or whatever. But that would do absolutely nothing to help your cause. In fact, it would only serve to solidify people's perceptions... their reality.

TJMAC77SP

11-11-2013, 10:07 PM

I never denied that they did. However, they make every effort to mitigate those results. You guys don't call us "bleeding hearts" for nothing, correct?

And here's where we get to the meat and potatoes of this discussion: YOU are ignorant of reality. Afterall, what IS reality? Perception. Perception is reality. The fact that perception is reality, is exactly why minorities and the poor - the very people who believe themselves to be victims of the GOPs policies - vote Democrat. It's why Democrats are winning elections.

You see, we can argue this all day. You can get clever with words and phrases, call me "ignorant" - hell, you can even outsmart me and WIN this argument - and every Democrat in the US can watch us go at it, ending with you verbally handing me my ass... but at the end of the day, all you would've done was win an argument, without actually convincing anyone of anything. Their perception of the GOP doesn't change. Their perception of the GOP is their reality. And they're going to vote accordingly.

And you can respond to me by bashing such voters... by saying that they're dependent on the government, or whatever. But that would do absolutely nothing to help your cause. In fact, it would only serve to solidify people's perceptions... their reality.

You realize of course that you just had an argument with yourself..............and lost........right?

BTW: The phrase is "Perception becomes reality" and it is used to describe when someone uses opinions to 'prove' something is factual rather than true fact.

TJMAC77SP

11-11-2013, 10:14 PM

Nah, just something you don't want to face. Until the GOP ditches the Southern Strategy, what Lee Atwater says is still relevant.

If you believe that what Lee Atwater said is irrelevant, then why point out "independent" commentary on it?

The relevance of his remarks from 23 years ago and the characterization of them are two separate issues.

Let's try this.

Show me (factually) where the GOP is still using the "Southern Strategy"

Then, explain to me (in your own words) what you think is meant by the Southern Strategy and what Atwater meant in the now again-famous quote.

Rusty Jones

11-11-2013, 10:51 PM

You realize of course that you just had an argument with yourself..............and lost........right?

BTW: The phrase is "Perception becomes reality" and it is used to describe when someone uses opinions to 'prove' something is factual rather than true fact.

What ever you say, buddy. You can deny that the GOP is racist or hates the poor. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The only thing that matters is whether or not the voters believe it is. And until the GOP can convince voters otherwise - not simply "beat" them in an argument - the belief will persist.

Rusty Jones

11-11-2013, 11:02 PM

The relevance of his remarks from 23 years ago and the characterization of them are two separate issues.

Let's try this.

Show me (factually) where the GOP is still using the "Southern Strategy"

Then, explain to me (in your own words) what you think is meant by the Southern Strategy and what Atwater meant in the now again-famous quote.

You call me "desperate," and now you resort to semantics. Southern Strategy - appealing to white racism to gain white votes. Lee Atwater said it - the Southern Strategy uses code words instead of referring to blacks specifically. Unfortunately, to you and everyone who shares your beliefs, if I pointed out the words they used instead... you'd deny that they're referring to blacks, or question how I know that they are. Minority voters feel that they're being referred to. Has the GOP, since Nixon, gone out of its way to convince them otherwise... with any proof being reflected in results at the polls?

USN - Retired

11-12-2013, 12:08 AM

- ... or Libertarian, since they think they don't count as conservatives - ...

Libertarians are not conservatives. Libertarians are not liberals.
The traditional "left-right" political spectrum is a line. The Nolan Chart, created by David Nolan, is a plane, which more accurately portrays the wide gamut of political thought.

http://www.lairdwilcox.com/images/nolan.jpg

http://nolan.jimeyer.org/graphics/nolanchart_withindices.jpg

Rusty Jones

11-12-2013, 12:24 AM

Libertarians are not conservatives. Libertarians are not liberals.
The traditional "left-right" political spectrum is a line. The Nolan Chart, created by David Nolan, is a plane, which more accurately portrays the wide gamut of political thought.

Yet in every house or senate - be it at the local, state, or federal level - they caucus with Republicans.

TJMAC77SP

11-12-2013, 12:24 AM

What ever you say, buddy. You can deny that the GOP is racist or hates the poor. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The only thing that matters is whether or not the voters believe it is. And until the GOP can convince voters otherwise - not simply "beat" them in an argument - the belief will persist.

Ok, so everything you claimed in the past several posts (and several months for that matter) means nothing? It doesn't matter if it is specious? Doesn't matter if it is hyperbole? Not if it is simply untrue? What matters is that the painting of the GOP as racists and haters of the poor has been successful?

Interesting way to debate a position you hold.

TJMAC77SP

11-12-2013, 12:27 AM

You call me "desperate," and now you resort to semantics. Southern Strategy - appealing to white racism to gain white votes. Lee Atwater said it - the Southern Strategy uses code words instead of referring to blacks specifically. Unfortunately, to you and everyone who shares your beliefs, if I pointed out the words they used instead... you'd deny that they're referring to blacks, or question how I know that they are. Minority voters feel that they're being referred to. Has the GOP, since Nixon, gone out of its way to convince them otherwise... with any proof being reflected in results at the polls?

If you are going to suggest saying something but include what you believe my response would be that really is just another unsuccessful debate tactic. This is why I said you were desperate.

BTW: Since semantics is the meaning of words and phrases and you used one incorrectly, yes I guess I was 'resorting' to semantics. What was your point there?

Rusty Jones

11-12-2013, 12:32 AM

Ok, so everything you claimed in the past several posts (and several months for that matter) means nothing? It doesn't matter if it is specious? Doesn't matter if it is hyperbole? Not if it is simply untrue? What matters is that the painting of the GOP as racists and haters of the poor has been successful?

Interesting way to debate a position you hold.

That's not what I'm saying. I will say that policies with a disproportionate adverse impact on minorities and the poor contribute to the belief that the GOP is racist. And the GOP has done nothing to convince them otherwise. And the reason could very well be that it might cost them to do so. That IS what happened to the Democratic Party in the mid 20th-century that sent white racists fleeing over to the Republican Party, is it not?

tiredretiredE7

11-12-2013, 01:07 AM

I never denied that they did. However, they make every effort to mitigate those results. You guys don't call us "bleeding hearts" for nothing, correct?

And here's where we get to the meat and potatoes of this discussion: YOU are ignorant of reality. Afterall, what IS reality? Perception. Perception is reality. The fact that perception is reality, is exactly why minorities and the poor - the very people who believe themselves to be victims of the GOPs policies - vote Democrat. It's why Democrats are winning elections.

You see, we can argue this all day. You can get clever with words and phrases, call me "ignorant" - hell, you can even outsmart me and WIN this argument - and every Democrat in the US can watch us go at it, ending with you verbally handing me my ass... but at the end of the day, all you would've done was win an argument, without actually convincing anyone of anything. Their perception of the GOP doesn't change. Their perception of the GOP is their reality. And they're going to vote accordingly.

And you can respond to me by bashing such voters... by saying that they're dependent on the government, or whatever. But that would do absolutely nothing to help your cause. In fact, it would only serve to solidify people's perceptions... their reality.

Detroit and California are the Democrats reality. The Affordable Care Act is going to demonstrate the true Democrat reality to the very same people who voted for President Obama.

AJBIGJ

11-12-2013, 03:14 AM

The reason is because most people alive today do not know of the origins of the Libertarian Movement.

Click on the following link and find out:

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian
Dude, Wikipedia is like a drug for you.

Say no to wiki!

AJBIGJ

11-12-2013, 03:23 AM

Ok, ladies, gentlemen, Rusty, TJMAC, let's employ a new exercise perhaps? You explain your position about an issue and leave the rest of the world's positions to the rest of the world. I'm quite sure they'll oblige you in filling in the information you lack about their own opinions. Is this an unreasonable request?

CORNELIUSSEON

11-12-2013, 04:09 AM

Dude, Wikipedia is like a drug for you.

Say no to wiki!

Generally I would agree with you on the use of Wikipedia, but - when the authors post factual information that is verifiable -Wikipedia is very useful indeed to help avoid the re-invention of the educational wheel. My choice was either to write a complete treatise here on the subject of the Libertarian movement, which would go over like a lead balloon, or link to the Wikipedia page on the subject and let you read what they write at your leisure. I chose the latter choice because it fulfills my purpose here without my having to take so much time writing on the subject. I do have a life outside of corresponding here.

AJBIGJ

11-12-2013, 04:24 AM

Generally I would agree with you on the use of Wikipedia, but - when the authors post factual information that is verifiable -Wikipedia is very useful indeed to help avoid the re-invention of the educational wheel. My choice was either to write a complete treatise here on the subject of the Libertarian movement, which would go over like a lead balloon, or link to the Wikipedia page on the subject and let you read what they write at your leisure. I chose the latter choice because it fulfills my purpose here without my having to take so much time writing on the subject. I do have a life outside of corresponding here.

Your purpose is... lacking. If you wanted to understand Libertarianism fully, it wouldn't hurt to first, maybe ask one? To be fair, if you were to ask two, you would get three independent opinions. The problem here is, the philosophy of "Libertarianism" weighs heavily on the notion that every individual is a sovereign, with inherent rights and liberties therein. A major tenet of that philosophy is the right of the sovereign to not have their individual liberties infringed through the use of force, of any variety you could imagine. Basically stated, there is no greater a discrimination against a minority than against that of an individual. If you ask two wolves and a sheep "what's for dinner?" the sheep will infallibly lose. That being said, the label itself of "Libertarian" is simply that, a label, which is as good or as poor as the individual convictions of the person towards which it applies to.

Be that as it may, Wiki is a user-sourced media, as good or as poor as the objectivity of its entrants. No academic institution in the world would allow you to cite such a source and remain credible, nor would I suggest you do so.

USN - Retired

11-12-2013, 04:28 AM

Say no to wiki!

Why?

I like wikipedia.

AJBIGJ

11-12-2013, 04:30 AM

Why?

I like wikipedia.

For potential background information, yes, for substantive proof to support one's point? Not so much!

USN - Retired

11-12-2013, 04:36 AM

I will say that policies with a disproportionate adverse impact on minorities and the poor contribute to the belief that the GOP is racist. And the GOP has done nothing to convince them otherwise.

Slander by the liberals contribute to the belief that the GOP is racist.

TJMAC77SP

11-12-2013, 04:43 AM

Ok, ladies, gentlemen, Rusty, TJMAC, let's employ a new exercise perhaps? You explain your position about an issue and leave the rest of the world's positions to the rest of the world. I'm quite sure they'll oblige you in filling in the information you lack about their own opinions. Is this an unreasonable request?

Not sure why you cited me in this and not sure what you mean.

AJBIGJ

11-12-2013, 04:48 AM

Simply put, you were quite happily pulling Rusty in the good old left/right paradigm, and to be fair, he is an excellent tango partner as such. I have often seen you in the position of defending these ideas, not so often expressing something that originates with yourself. Take that as you will...

imnohero

11-12-2013, 04:51 AM

I would suggest if you want to understand Libertarianism as a political philosophy, you begin here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

Then read a 20 or 30 books, by the list of authors you can find here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Libertarian_theorists
and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Libertarian_economists

That's a big list, so I would suggest you start with "Anarchy,State and Utopia" by Nozick, and some in depth review of Rawl "A Theory of Justice", to which Nozick was responding.

If your completely lost, you might try contacting your local state university Philosophy department, not some random person that claims to be a Libertarian. As a political philosophy, Libertarianism is all over the place. That's primarily because at it's core Libertarianism is a theory of economic and property justice. So based on the political leanings of the person, they fit it into thier politics. As either political or economic theory, in my opinion, it is seriously lacking.

TJMAC77SP

11-12-2013, 04:57 AM

Simply put, you were quite happily pulling Rusty in the good old left/right paradigm, and to be fair, he is an excellent tango partner as such. I have often seen you in the position of defending these ideas, not so often expressing something that originates with yourself. Take that as you will...

Actually I was putting a spotlight on Rusty's incessant unoriginal and hyperbolic ranting. I can't be held responsible at the ineptitude of others. I do not so much defend an idea than rail against rhetoric and hyperbole. Perhaps you have an idea to share. I still didn't understand your suggestion.

AJBIGJ

11-12-2013, 04:58 AM

I would suggest if you want to understand Libertarianism as a political philosophy, you begin here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

Then read a 20 or 30 books, by the list of authors you can find here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Libertarian_theorists
and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Libertarian_economists

That's a big list, so I would suggest you start with "Anarchy,State and Utopia" by Nozick, and some in depth review of Rawl "A Theory of Justice", to which Nozick was responding.

If your completely lost, you might try contacting your local state university Philosophy department, not some random person that claims to be a Libertarian. As a political philosophy, Libertarianism is all over the place. That's primarily because at it's core Libertarianism is a theory of economic and property justice. So based on the political leanings of the person, they fit it into thier politics. As either political or economic theory, in my opinion, it is seriously lacking.

If you wish to be fully accurate, philosophy itself is all over the place; libertarianism, the Enlightenment Era, and everything of the nature, are simple facets of the holistic experience. Not to mention classical Liberalism and other philosophies. Essentially you've proven that free thought is too complicated for the individual who fails to research their individual philosophy.

TJMAC77SP

11-12-2013, 05:00 AM

If you wish to be fully accurate, philosophy itself is all over the place; libertarianism, the Enlightenment Era, and everything of the nature, are simple facets of the holistic experience. Not to mention classical Liberalism and other philosophies. Essentially you've proven that free thought is too complicated for the individual who fails to research their individual philosophy.

That's a big list, so I would suggest you start with "Anarchy,State and Utopia" by Nozick, and some in depth review of Rawl "A Theory of Justice", to which Nozick was responding.

If your completely lost, you might try contacting your local state university Philosophy department, not some random person that claims to be a Libertarian. As a political philosophy, Libertarianism is all over the place. That's primarily because at it's core Libertarianism is a theory of economic and property justice. So based on the political leanings of the person, they fit it into thier politics. As either political or economic theory, in my opinion, it is seriously lacking.

This post seems strangely redundant to another

AJBIGJ

11-12-2013, 05:03 AM

Actually I was putting a spotlight on Rusty's incessant unoriginal and hyperbolic ranting. I can't be held responsible at the ineptitude of others. I do not so much defend an idea than rail against rhetoric and hyperbole. Perhaps you have an idea to share. I still didn't understand your suggestion.

I can credit you for railing against the rhetoric, if only you hadn't returned in kind. My point is your intentions, from my perspective, seem to be intended towards drawing out the opinions of the "left", not the individual, which are not necessarily synonymous.

AJBIGJ

11-12-2013, 05:04 AM

error in quote placement...

TJMAC77SP

11-12-2013, 05:38 AM

I can credit you for railing against the rhetoric, if only you hadn't returned in kind. My point is your intentions, from my perspective, seem to be intended towards drawing out the opinions of the "left", not the individual, which are not necessarily synonymous.

Perhaps you can point out my rhetoric?

In Rusty's case the opinions are synonymous

TJMAC77SP

11-12-2013, 05:38 AM

error in quote placement...

I see said the blind man.............

Monkey

11-12-2013, 12:07 PM

No... it's because the policies they push, if and when implemented, have a disproportionate adverse impact on minorities and the poor. And then they hide behind "colorblindness" to act as if they didn't know this.

I think you give the voting public too much credit. A very small percentage of voters have any idea what the "policies" of each party entail. Instead they listen to people they respect and follow their bidding. That's how the GOP has earned the distinction of being "racists". The left was ingenious in attacking the right with calling them "racists". Once you've been called that, you will never be able to talk/prove your way out of it. It's no different to people who have been falsely accused of rape, child molestation/pornograpy, beating their wife/children; once you've been accused, you will never be able to shake that label.

The truth is that I've encountered just as many racists who lean left as who lean right.

Exactly which policies do you feel the GOP have pushed that are intended to adversely impact the minorities/poor?

AJBIGJ

11-12-2013, 12:56 PM

Perhaps you can point out my rhetoric?

In Rusty's case the opinions are synonymous

I can cite even this very response in addition to the couple of pages you two have been going back-and-forth. The rhetoric I refer to is that which implies that all individuals fall into one of two collective constructs of an ideology, left vs. right if you will. Because of this general worldview we often are led to assume that the individuals who disagree with ourselves on a single issue do so because they fall into the opposite collective and are therefore incapable of independent reasoning. I personally believe that intellectually, you very much know this not to be the case, and I think he does as well. My goal of recent has become to circumvent this level of unconstructive conversation and try to steer it towards a simple discussion between individuals, any indication of political leanings a mere afterthought informing only towards the ideology that might drive a person to think that way, but not a hard constraint making that individual incapable of breaking from the mold we tend to presume exists based on this left/right paradigm. In short, I am trying to deter the conundrum where you two almost feel you have to disagree on everything because you vote a certain way.

TJMAC77SP

11-12-2013, 01:22 PM

I can cite even this very response in addition to the couple of pages you two have been going back-and-forth. The rhetoric I refer to is that which implies that all individuals fall into one of two collective constructs of an ideology, left vs. right if you will. Because of this general worldview we often are led to assume that the individuals who disagree with ourselves on a single issue do so because they fall into the opposite collective and are therefore incapable of independent reasoning. I personally believe that intellectually, you very much know this not to be the case, and I think he does as well. My goal of recent has become to circumvent this level of unconstructive conversation and try to steer it towards a simple discussion between individuals, any indication of political leanings a mere afterthought informing only towards the ideology that might drive a person to think that way, but not a hard constraint making that individual incapable of breaking from the mold we tend to presume exists based on this left/right paradigm. In short, I am trying to deter the conundrum where you two almost feel you have to disagree on everything because you vote a certain way.

I think you may want to go back and review exactly what rhetoric is. I don't believe any of my posts (and certainly not the one you cited) puts entire groups in nice neat boxes. In fact, THAT is exactly what I usually rail against. In Rusty's case, he has an obvious political viewpoint with an equally obvious racial bent. That in itself is of course not rhetoric or hyperbole. Unfortunately when challenged he almost always immediately defaults to statements like the GOP purposely implements policies to harm minorities and poor people, further exacerbated by his accusation that this is their primary purpose. That is preposterous and rank hyperbole. Of course as the discussion devolves this usually leads to name calling and ends with the typical homoerotic insults. One good result of the recent moderation is a curtailing of at least that.

How I vote is very seldom discussed by me and quite irrelevant. If I have posted something unfactual that is another story. There are many (well admittedly some) who I believe would be fairly liberal in their viewpoints but do not engage in posting nonsense and with those people I have discussions, each of us expressing our viewpoints and moving on.

AJBIGJ

11-12-2013, 01:31 PM

I think you may want to go back and review exactly what rhetoric is. I don't believe any of my posts (and certainly not the one you cited) puts entire groups in nice neat boxes. In fact, THAT is exactly what I usually rail against. In Rusty's case, he has an obvious political viewpoint with an equally obvious racial bent. That in itself is of course not rhetoric or hyperbole. Unfortunately when challenged he almost always immediately defaults to statements like the GOP purposely implements policies to harm minorities and poor people, further exacerbated by his accusation that this is their primary purpose. That is preposterous and rank hyperbole. Of course as the discussion devolves this usually leads to name calling and ends with the typical homoerotic insults. One good result of the recent moderation is a curtailing of at least that.

How I vote is very seldom discussed by me and quite irrelevant. If I have posted something unfactual that is another story. There are many (well admittedly some) who I believe would be fairly liberal in their viewpoints but do not engage in posting nonsense and with those people I have discussions, each of us expressing our viewpoints and moving on.

Rhetoric is essentially defined as using language to prove a point, I know there are other implications sometimes in the way it is used but from our standpoint and the way I am using it what I mean is words used to encourage the viewpoint that you are and must be opposed to one another based on your ideological background. I am not so much defending his actions, in fact I was critiquing his simultaneously, while I was criticizing you for becoming an active participant in that level of discussion for whatever reason you had in doing so. You know the phrase "It takes two to tango", and I do know from experience it is possible to break Rusty and many others who are notoriously "left-leaning" from that mindset. The methodology you chose to use has the complete opposite effect, it places both of you in polarized camps, whether you realize it or not and whether you intended it or not.

TJMAC77SP

11-12-2013, 02:38 PM

Rhetoric is essentially defined as using language to prove a point, I know there are other implications sometimes in the way it is used but from our standpoint and the way I am using it what I mean is words used to encourage the viewpoint that you are and must be opposed to one another based on your ideological background. I am not so much defending his actions, in fact I was critiquing his simultaneously, while I was criticizing you for becoming an active participant in that level of discussion for whatever reason you had in doing so. You know the phrase "It takes two to tango", and I do know from experience it is possible to break Rusty and many others who are notoriously "left-leaning" from that mindset. The methodology you chose to use has the complete opposite effect, it places both of you in polarized camps, whether you realize it or not and whether you intended it or not.

Ok, I understand your use of rhetoric and you are correct.

So, what do you propose............what is it that you desire? It seems you are attempting to moderate this thread so what is the outcome you want?

Rusty Jones

11-12-2013, 03:51 PM

Slander by the liberals contribute to the belief that the GOP is racist.

Slander? How about direct quotes... from YOU? You LOATHE poor people, and you literally have dozens of rants on MTF where you launch all-out assaults on them. Go ahead, deny it. Do it, and I'll start posting quotes.

CORNELIUSSEON

11-12-2013, 04:58 PM

Your purpose is... lacking. If you wanted to understand Libertarianism fully, it wouldn't hurt to first, maybe ask one? To be fair, if you were to ask two, you would get three independent opinions. The problem here is, the philosophy of "Libertarianism" weighs heavily on the notion that every individual is a sovereign, with inherent rights and liberties therein. A major tenet of that philosophy is the right of the sovereign to not have their individual liberties infringed through the use of force, of any variety you could imagine. Basically stated, there is no greater a discrimination against a minority than against that of an individual. If you ask two wolves and a sheep "what's for dinner?" the sheep will infallibly lose. That being said, the label itself of "Libertarian" is simply that, a label, which is as good or as poor as the individual convictions of the person towards which it applies to.

Be that as it may, Wiki is a user-sourced media, as good or as poor as the objectivity of its entrants. No academic institution in the world would allow you to cite such a source and remain credible, nor would I suggest you do so.

In the first place, I am long since done with academic institutions since I am RETIRED (I turn 65 in 19 Days.) so i have no fear of Academic Police. My judgement of any specific Wikipedia article depends on three things:

1. When I have experience or personal knowledge of the subject, I check to see how far afield Wikipedia is from what I KNOW. When it agrees with what I know, I still use the Wikipedia article since it is ONLINE, can be linked, and thus does not require me to re-write what they write.

2, When I can easily find other sources, I compare them with Wikipedia, and - when they agree - I still select the Wikipedia one since it is ONLINE, and can be linked to wherever I am posting to.

3. When Wikipedia disagrees with what I KNOW, or what my other sources tell me, I still link to the Wikipedia page and only add the specific corrections.

Right, wrong or indifferent, Wikipedia is still a great idea because of the amount of writing it saves.

AJBIGJ

11-12-2013, 06:11 PM

Ok, I understand your use of rhetoric and you are correct.

So, what do you propose............what is it that you desire? It seems you are attempting to moderate this thread so what is the outcome you want?

Moderate, no, nothing so bold or forcible. Encourage intelligent discourse between individuals rather than left/right talking around one another which is more common around here, yes, this has long been my goal in here. I like it when I see it happen but I can only encourage others to engage because I truly believe it to be much more worthwhile.

AJBIGJ

11-12-2013, 06:16 PM

In the first place, I am long since done with academic institutions since I am RETIRED (I turn 65 in 19 Days.) so i have no fear of Academic Police. My judgement of any specific Wikipedia article depends on three things:

1. When I have experience or personal knowledge of the subject, I check to see how far afield Wikipedia is from what I KNOW. When it agrees with what I know, I still use the Wikipedia article since it is ONLINE, can be linked, and thus does not require me to re-write what they write.

2, When I can easily find other sources, I compare them with Wikipedia, and - when they agree - I still select the Wikipedia one since it is ONLINE, and can be linked to wherever I am posting to.

3. When Wikipedia disagrees with what I KNOW, or what my other sources tell me, I still link to the Wikipedia page and only add the specific corrections.

Right, wrong or indifferent, Wikipedia is still a great idea because of the amount of writing it saves.

It's a credibility issue, it gives the perception that you are incapable of independent intelligent thought when you rely on it to a greater extent. It makes it extremely difficult for others to take you seriously when you appear to be a "one trick pony". If you really wish to understand the philosophy, I highly suggest you become a bit academic and read into it from various authors, research via the Cato Institute, anything but simple quoting of Wikipedia, if I was to be generous I would state the wiki version is extremely misleading. I would say the same for socialist philosophy to be fair.

Rainmaker

11-12-2013, 07:14 PM

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...

USN - Retired

11-12-2013, 07:37 PM

Go ahead, deny it. Do it,

Okay, I deny it.

and I'll start posting quotes.

We're waiting.

You LOATHE poor people, and you literally have dozens of rants on MTF where you launch all-out assaults on them. .

I don't loathe them. I love them. You just don't understand the concept of "tough love".

Rainmaker

11-12-2013, 07:58 PM

Okay, I deny it.

We're waiting.

I don't loathe them. I love them. You just don't understand the concept of "tough love".

In the words of Rainmaker's Bootylicious 2nd Ex-wife. there's a very thin line between love and hate. NomSayin?

Rusty Jones

11-12-2013, 08:13 PM

Okay, I deny it.

We're waiting.

I don't loathe them. I love them. You just don't understand the concept of "tough love".

Who the fuck are you, Wildman? What's up with this "we" shit?

So all the hateful venom you spewed on poor people is "tough love?" Take that bullshit somewhere else. I bet you couldn't even convince yourself of that "tough love" bullshit. Anyone who says "tough love" - in ANY situation, not just rich/poor, has lost all credibility.

Rainmaker

11-12-2013, 08:17 PM

Who the fuck are you, Wildman? What's up with this "we" shit?

So all the hateful venom you spewed on poor people is "tough love?" Take that bullshit somewhere else. I bet you couldn't even convince yourself of that "tough love" bullshit. Anyone who says "tough love" - in ANY situation, not just rich/poor, has lost all credibility.

That's zactly what Rainmaker tolt her. Next thing he know the crazy B!$#h threw a ceramic lamp at him.

Measure Man

11-12-2013, 08:31 PM

People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?) This family represents the cultural changes that have enveloped parts — but not all — of America. To cultural conservatives, this doesn’t look like their country at all.

So all the hateful venom you spewed on poor people is "tough love?" Take that bullshit somewhere else. I bet you couldn't even convince yourself of that "tough love" bullshit. Anyone who says "tough love" - in ANY situation, not just rich/poor, has lost all credibility.

I'm starting to pick up a vibe from your posts. It may even be a negative vibe.

USN - Retired

11-12-2013, 08:35 PM

That's zactly what Rainmaker tolt her. Next thing he know the crazy B!$#h threw a ceramic lamp at him.

Did Rainmaker consider that response by her to be a negative vibe?

USN - Retired

11-12-2013, 08:42 PM

Take that bullshit somewhere else.

I will if you will accompany me.

kool-aid

11-13-2013, 01:49 AM

Slander? How about direct quotes... from YOU? You LOATHE poor people, and you literally have dozens of rants on MTF where you launch all-out assaults on them. Go ahead, deny it. Do it, and I'll start posting quotes.

I just loathe lazy people - but it does seem many lazy people are poor. I just loathe people who take more from society than they bring to the whole. I loathe people who never try to be something or do something with thier lives and spend more time sucking from uncle sugar than putting something back in the pot.

imported_WILDJOKER5

11-13-2013, 11:20 AM

Slander? How about direct quotes... from YOU? You LOATHE poor people, and you literally have dozens of rants on MTF where you launch all-out assaults on them. Go ahead, deny it. Do it, and I'll start posting quotes.

Loathing poor people = racist? Odd. I didnt know only a certain race was poor?

CORNELIUSSEON

11-13-2013, 05:04 PM

I would suggest if you want to understand Libertarianism as a political philosophy, you begin here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

Then read a 20 or 30 books, by the list of authors you can find here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Libertarian_theorists
and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Libertarian_economists

That's a big list, so I would suggest you start with "Anarchy,State and Utopia" by Nozick, and some in depth review of Rawl "A Theory of Justice", to which Nozick was responding.

If your completely lost, you might try contacting your local state university Philosophy department, not some random person that claims to be a Libertarian. As a political philosophy, Libertarianism is all over the place. That's primarily because at it's core Libertarianism is a theory of economic and property justice. So based on the political leanings of the person, they fit it into thier politics. As either political or economic theory, in my opinion, it is seriously lacking.

I just noticed something very interesting. I linked to the Wikipedia page on Libertarianism, and got a complaint. I then went to your first link, which goes to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and the second paragraph of that article is the source of the second paragraph of the Wikipedia article. So, it seems that instead of going to the Stanford article, I only needed to read the Wikipedia article - which is what I actually did - and got a very fair look at what Libertarianism is. I am NOT interested in the nuts and bolts of the history of Libertarianism, but only the ORIGINS of Libertarianism. Why? Because many philosophies have been modified and merged into other philosophies over the years - as has been the fate of Libertarianism - and it is useful to know just where and how a specific philosophy originated so you can find out if current users of the word are using it correctly or not. I find that the current users are NOT using the word correctly, and should mofify it to fit their intended use. It would be more honest if they did.

imported_WILDJOKER5

11-13-2013, 05:26 PM

I just noticed something very interesting. I linked to the Wikipedia page on Libertarianism, and got a complaint. I then went to your first link, which goes to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and the second paragraph of that article is the source of the second paragraph of the Wikipedia article. So, it seems that instead of going to the Stanford article, I only needed to read the Wikipedia article - which is what I actually did - and got a very fair look at what Libertarianism is. I am NOT interested in the nuts and bolts of the history of Libertarianism, but only the ORIGINS of Libertarianism. Why? Because many philosophies have been modified and merged into other philosophies over the years - as has been the fate of Libertarianism - and it is useful to know just where and how a specific philosophy originated so you can find out if current users of the word are using it correctly or not. I find that the current users are NOT using the word correctly, and should mofify it to fit their intended use. It would be more honest if they did.

Is that like how Progressivism, liberalism, and conservatism arent being used in the proper manor either? Please explain your take on why Libertarians in America and not using the word correctly? And I believe you that they arent fully to the letter of the definition in line with the word, but I am not sure many people really want anarchy.

CORNELIUSSEON

11-13-2013, 06:59 PM

Is that like how Progressivism, liberalism, and conservatism arent being used in the proper manor either? Please explain your take on why Libertarians in America and not using the word correctly? And I believe you that they arent fully to the letter of the definition in line with the word, but I am not sure many people really want anarchy.

Actually, Liberalism, Progressivism, and Conservatism ALL have links to Libertarianism at one time or another, most of them under the headline of Radicalism. As to Anarchy, that is what is the basis of the Tea Party's philosophy, AND the Occupy Movement as well. The difference between these two is the fact that the Tea Party only wants to destroy one side of the equation, while Anarchists want to eliminate organized government as we know it; the Occupy Movement hasn't had sufficient time to really hammer out a coherent philosophy that differs from all of the others, but they ARE on the right track.

TJMAC77SP

11-13-2013, 09:18 PM

Actually, Liberalism, Progressivism, and Conservatism ALL have links to Libertarianism at one time or another, most of them under the headline of Radicalism. As to Anarchy, that is what is the basis of the Tea Party's philosophy, AND the Occupy Movement as well. The difference between these two is the fact that the Tea Party only wants to destroy one side of the equation, while Anarchists want to eliminate organized government as we know it; the Occupy Movement hasn't had sufficient time to really hammer out a coherent philosophy that differs from all of the others, but they ARE on the right track.

Well, I suppose we get what we deserve and this is another proof of the adage that one should be careful what one asks for.

Many of us asked you to provide an original idea and lo and behold..............this.

CYBERFX1024

11-14-2013, 12:36 AM

Actually, Liberalism, Progressivism, and Conservatism ALL have links to Libertarianism at one time or another, most of them under the headline of Radicalism. As to Anarchy, that is what is the basis of the Tea Party's philosophy, AND the Occupy Movement as well. The difference between these two is the fact that the Tea Party only wants to destroy one side of the equation, while Anarchists want to eliminate organized government as we know it; the Occupy Movement hasn't had sufficient time to really hammer out a coherent philosophy that differs from all of the others, but they ARE on the right track.

Wow you really are as crazy and stupid as you sound.. Saying that OWS is on the right track. What have you been smoking? Because I want some of that. The Tea Party do NOT want Anarchy. They only want a simplified scaled down government that does not trample on the rights of the states and it's citizens.

CORNELIUSSEON

11-14-2013, 02:48 AM

Wow you really are as crazy and stupid as you sound.. Saying that OWS is on the right track. What have you been smoking? Because I want some of that. The Tea Party do NOT want Anarchy. They only want a simplified scaled down government that does not trample on the rights of the states and it's citizens.

Words of false wisdom spoken by someone who is still wet behind the ears.

The Tea Party - by their own admission - wants to destroy at least the Democratic Party and all others who purvey Liberalism and Progressivism, not to mention the Moderate Republican Party, so they fall into the slot reserved for Anarchists, although they don't know that they are supposed to be against both sides in their quest for their form of government.

AJBIGJ

11-14-2013, 11:29 AM

Words of false wisdom spoken by someone who is still wet behind the ears.

The Tea Party - by their own admission - wants to destroy at least the Democratic Party and all others who purvey Liberalism and Progressivism, not to mention the Moderate Republican Party, so they fall into the slot reserved for Anarchists, although they don't know that they are supposed to be against both sides in their quest for their form of government.

I'm no direct supporter of the Tea Party per se, but by this definition the Founding Fathers were also anarchists, and even they didn't have the popular support of the people at the time. Sometimes a little "Anarchy" is a worthwhile cause.

Absinthe Anecdote

11-14-2013, 11:43 AM

Actually, Liberalism, Progressivism, and Conservatism ALL have links to Libertarianism at one time or another, most of them under the headline of Radicalism. As to Anarchy, that is what is the basis of the Tea Party's philosophy, AND the Occupy Movement as well. The difference between these two is the fact that the Tea Party only wants to destroy one side of the equation, while Anarchists want to eliminate organized government as we know it; the Occupy Movement hasn't had sufficient time to really hammer out a coherent philosophy that differs from all of the others, but they ARE on the right track.

Care to elaborate on how they are on the right track?

imported_WILDJOKER5

11-14-2013, 11:47 AM

Actually, Liberalism, Progressivism, and Conservatism ALL have links to Libertarianism at one time or another, most of them under the headline of Radicalism. As to Anarchy, that is what is the basis of the Tea Party's philosophy, AND the Occupy Movement as well. The difference between these two is the fact that the Tea Party only wants to destroy one side of the equation, while Anarchists want to eliminate organized government as we know it; the Occupy Movement hasn't had sufficient time to really hammer out a coherent philosophy that differs from all of the others, but they ARE on the right track.Following the constitution so we have less taxes is not the same as Anarchy. The constitution is there to limit the government, but yet those in power and specifically progressives want to turn it around to have a constitution which limits the people. Occupy never had a coherent thought while they were in their druggie tents raping random people.

imported_WILDJOKER5

11-14-2013, 12:48 PM

Words of false wisdom spoken by someone who is still wet behind the ears.

The Tea Party - by their own admission - wants to destroy at least the Democratic Party and all others who purvey Liberalism and Progressivism, not to mention the Moderate Republican Party, so they fall into the slot reserved for Anarchists, although they don't know that they are supposed to be against both sides in their quest for their form of government.

The Democrats want to "destroy" the GOP, does this make them Anarchist? Both sides fight against each other trying to get a majority of seat to the point where they really dont have to bother with asking the other side about their position. Following the constitution without making up new words for something totally oposite of their program is not Anarchy. Anarchy is the absentce of government. The TEA Party is no where near that.

CORNELIUSSEON

11-14-2013, 02:21 PM

The Democrats want to "destroy" the GOP, does this make them Anarchist? Both sides fight against each other trying to get a majority of seat to the point where they really dont have to bother with asking the other side about their position. Following the constitution without making up new words for something totally oposite of their program is not Anarchy. Anarchy is the absentce of government. The TEA Party is no where near that.

The democrats don’t want to destroy the Republican Party – we recognize that whereas we have an edge in certain States and Cities, the Republicans have a similar edge in certain States and Cities, and we recognize the need for this balance nationwide to deal with the differences in political thought throughout the nation. What we want to prevent is the Anarchy that the Tea Party Wing is practicing, both against our party, and against the Moderate and Conservative wings of the Republican Party.

CORNELIUSSEON

11-14-2013, 02:32 PM

Following the constitution so we have less taxes is not the same as Anarchy. The constitution is there to limit the government, but yet those in power and specifically progressives want to turn it around to have a constitution which limits the people. Occupy never had a coherent thought while they were in their druggie tents raping random people.

Actually, the Constitution is NOT there to prevent political progression such as was already present as evidenced by the American Revolution. What the Constitution was framed to prevent was the brand of Authoritarianism and Conservitism then practiced by the British government. For example: Ben Franklin was sent to London as the representative of at least three Colonies. His job was to lobby the Parliament for at least ONE seat in that body, and he was turned down absolutely flat. What Franklin was practicing was Progressivism, pure and simple, and that political move was refused by the Conservative British Parliament, and – as a result – put us one step closer to our breaking away from Britain. Now, there were Anarchists involved at the time, as evidenced by the Boston Tea Party and the response to the Boston Massacre.

CORNELIUSSEON

11-14-2013, 02:50 PM

Care to elaborate on how they are on the right track?

The Occupy Movement recognizes that BOTH sides are stuck in the mud and need to clear the Bulls**t out of their brain. Neither side is totally right, and neither side is totally wrong, but they are shouting past each other rather than dealing with the political and policy needs of ALL the people.

One of the most important things that needs to be changed is the breakdown of the Income Tax Table. I am NOT saying that people should be restrained as to how much they make on an Annual Basis, but I do say that there are only so many Millions you can spend in a lifetime. Likewise, I am NOT saying that the Poor should be given all of their needs, but I AM saying that some of the excess riches should be aimed at providing some form of EMPLOYMENT for the Poor to balance the sheet. The Civilian Conservation Corps - a Progressive contribution of the New Deal period - is a perfect example of a solution. Put them to work in all of the areas where Business is NOT willing to spend a Dime - and there are NUMEROUS projects they are NOT willing to finance on their own Dime - and pay the CCC Workers from the Income Taxes of the Super Rich who won't be able to spend that money otherwise.

CORNELIUSSEON

11-14-2013, 02:52 PM

I'm no direct supporter of the Tea Party per se, but by this definition the Founding Fathers were also anarchists, and even they didn't have the popular support of the people at the time. Sometimes a little "Anarchy" is a worthwhile cause.

I highlighted your re-worded quote from Thomas Jefferson.

imported_WILDJOKER5

11-14-2013, 02:55 PM

The democrats don’t want to destroy the Republican Party – we recognize that whereas we have an edge in certain States and Cities, the Republicans have a similar edge in certain States and Cities, and we recognize the need for this balance nationwide to deal with the differences in political thought throughout the nation. What we want to prevent is the Anarchy that the Tea Party Wing is practicing, both against our party, and against the Moderate and Conservative wings of the Republican Party.

Really? Is that why the Dems didnt consult with the GOP when they passed the ACA without a single GOP vote? Is that why the Dems always revert back to calling the GOP racist or women haters if they come close to winning an election the dems usually win? Dont try that BS about the dems being a bipartisan party when they ran out all the blue dog dems along time ago. The only thing I could possibly agree with you about is that there is a wing in the GOP that is just the republican named democrats.

Its funny you keep refering back to the GOP and that they have moderate and extremest groups, but yet lump pretty much all of the dems together as of one collective mind. The TEA party seems to recognize there is no longer 2 different parties, there is one which has 2 different sets of morals, but both are completely authoritarian. The TEA party isnt about Anarchy and is far from it. They want to follow the constitution, which is no where near Anarchy.

imported_WILDJOKER5

11-14-2013, 02:57 PM

Actually, the Constitution is NOT there to prevent political progression such as was already present as evidenced by the American Revolution. What the Constitution was framed to prevent was the brand of Authoritarianism and Conservitism then practiced by the British government. For example: Ben Franklin was sent to London as the representative of at least three Colonies. His job was to lobby the Parliament for at least ONE seat in that body, and he was turned down absolutely flat. What Franklin was practicing was Progressivism, pure and simple, and that political move was refused by the Conservative British Parliament, and – as a result – put us one step closer to our breaking away from Britain. Now, there were Anarchists involved at the time, as evidenced by the Boston Tea Party and the response to the Boston Massacre.

Huh, yes, the constitution along with the first 10 amendments puts limits on the government powers. It says what the congress can do, the POTUS can do, and the SCOTUS.

Stalwart

11-14-2013, 03:03 PM

I think you are confusing the purpose of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution somewhat.

I do agree that the Constitution is not to prevent progression, but disagree that it was also to prevent conservatism.

The Articles of Confederation created a framework for the independent states, but did little in the way of a central / federal government. The Constitution was written with the purpose of defining the roles of the federal government and establishing the checks and balances. Of note in particular is that the Executive Branch has in modern times evolved severely from the original intent -- a quick glance at the Constitution also notes that the first thing discussed is the Legislative Branch, not the Executive.

I agree that the founding fathers by and large were progressive for their era.

If you read the preamble is pretty clear that the Constitution is to define the powers of the new government as originating from the people of the United States -- nothing about conservatism, progressivism etc.

As a pure sidebar, many argue that there was no American Revolution, since not much REALLY changed. Compare pre-revolution France to post-revolution France: an entirely new form of government, a new calendar, numbering system and units of measure -- an entirely new culture. Many argue that America had a War of Independence, the end result (even after the Constitution was ratified) was a slightly tweaked form of the British government: bicameral legislative branch, the upper house (Senate) was not elected by the people but by the state legislatures (parallel to the House of Lords being appointed) and essentially the same culture as before.

AJBIGJ

11-14-2013, 03:22 PM

I highlighted your re-worded quote from Thomas Jefferson.

Purely coincidental, but it wouldn't surprise me a great deal to hear that be the case, I kind of think he had a somewhat worthwhile philosophy on government.

Stalwart

11-14-2013, 03:28 PM

One of my favorite Jefferson quotes: "... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." He was obviously progressive in his thinking but skewed conservative as he got older.

AJBIGJ

11-14-2013, 03:29 PM

One of my favorite Jefferson quotes: "... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." He was obviously progressive in his thinking but skewed conservative as he got older.

Supposedly we all do, if the common Winston Churchill quote is to be believed!

CYBERFX1024

11-14-2013, 04:29 PM

The democrats don’t want to destroy the Republican Party – we recognize that whereas we have an edge in certain States and Cities, the Republicans have a similar edge in certain States and Cities, and we recognize the need for this balance nationwide to deal with the differences in political thought throughout the nation. What we want to prevent is the Anarchy that the Tea Party Wing is practicing, both against our party, and against the Moderate and Conservative wings of the Republican Party.

You are dead wrong sir. The Democrats want to utterly destroy the Republican Party and they have let everyone know that. They have said it time and time again. The Tea Party knows that there needs to be a balance of power not just swinging one way or the other. That's why people got pissed and formed the tea party in general. The Democrats took control of both the Senate and the House, then the Executive office as well and just started voting for any such law they wanted to at that point in time.

Notice how the Republicans have brought forward a budget to help reduce the debt every single year of Obama's Presidency, and every single time the Democrats said hell no. But the Democrats have put forward a budget that says to raise taxes and curtail no spending at all. All the while Obama's budget was laughed at by both Dems and Repubs.